User:Remycrowley/Mary Guinan/MdMcAlister Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Remycrowley
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Remycrowley/Mary Guinan
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not currently. She has written five paragraphs covering different aspects of Mary Guinan's life and career. These appear better suited to the body of the article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not applicable.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not applicable.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not applicable.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not applicable.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The content explores Mary Guinan's humanitarian work (e.g. small pox in India, reducing the spread of AIDS, fighting herpes and Ebola), but also delves a bit into her personal history and the role it may have played in motivating her career.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. The sources are from 2018 and 2020.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can tell.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. It is part of the Women Scientists WikiProject.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Largely, yes. Near the end of the second paragraph, the discussion about contraceptives might lean a bit into a laudatory tone. Which, honestly, is understandable because it's very laudable! But it could potentially be made more neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? See above.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I suppose these five paragraphs do represent a positive viewpoint, rather than exploring any negative or controversial aspects of Mary Guinan's career. I'm not sure if that's necessary (or if such information exists), but I'm trying to do my due diligence with these questions.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? You could argue that the content is persuading the reader to admire Mary Guinan.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? One of the new sources is a news article from the KU Medical Center, another is a biography from Drexel University, and the third is a blog post from the University of Florida. Given their associations with different universities, the sources are reasonably reliable.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The biography from Drexel University is relatively short. But articles on people are not always particularly thorough.
- Are the sources current? Yes. They are from 2018 and 2020.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Each appears to be written by a different author. The Drexel biography has no claimed authorship.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. All three links work.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content reads like an in-progress draft: the overall sentence structure is good, but with a few compositional mistakes that would likely get caught in the next round of revision.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? See above.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is not yet broken down into sections. Some of the paragraphs would likely benefit from being split into separate topics, while others might benefit from being joined (e.g. combining all of the information about her humanitarian medical work into one section).
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not yet.
- Are images well-captioned? Not applicable.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Including this content in the main article will expand and strengthen it.
- What are the strengths of the content added? It explores both her career and personal life, connecting the two where appropriate.
- How can the content added be improved? It could be organized into sections, and given another sweep of revisions.
Overall evaluation
[edit]Nice work actually having something written! It looks like you're off to a good start, you'll just need to figure out how to organize the information and then how best to incorporate it into the main article. I agree with the notification at the top of the main article that it reads a bit like a resume. Finding ways to tone that down in the current article would probably be helpful to the overall goals of Wikipedia.