User:Bruhgirl/Dr. Maria Ruth B. Pineda-Cortel/Nomakm Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Bruhgirl

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bruhgirl/Dr._Maria_Ruth_B._Pineda-Cortel?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): No article yet (May 6)

Evaluate the drafted changes

- The content is relevant to Dr. Pineda-Cortel as a scientific researcher and advocate for women’s health. The article is not finished, but the content there is up to date with most citations coming from 2020. Since the article is not finished there is some information missing. The article does deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps as it discusses a woman in the STEM field. One thing I would add to the education content is to maybe find anything that she’s done in her education—what labs did she work in, did she have any mentors, any clubs she did, etc.
- The content is neutral discussing Dr. Pineda-Cortel with only facts and no opinions or apparent biases.
- The content is backed up by reliable sources that are not published by Dr. Pineda-Cortel herself. The information is presented in a way that accurately reflects what the citated sources say. However, the citations are mainly from the UST website which although they may be the only sources of information, Wikipedia may say that this is not thorough enough—that she may not be as notable. As previously mentioned, the sources are up to date—coming from 2020. All the citations in the references work.
- The content is well written, easy to read, and concise. One thing I would fix in the intro is changing “As a woman of science…” to “As a woman in science…”. Also, I would take out the note in the Education header as it is not needed when you publish the article. Overall, the article has great organization starting with the intro, then moving on to her education, and then career. I like how the publications and awards are towards the end since they aren’t really a timeline organization.
- The article does have 3+ secondary sources although I would try to find more resources outside of UST. I like the infobox at the top of the page as it looks like other Wikipedia pages and gives the readers a great summary of the article topic. Great addition of links within the article so readers can click them if they do not know what it is.
- Overall, the article is organized great, and it seems the author will add more information soon. There was not much to review since the draft is incomplete but what was there seemed complete and informational. The content could be improved with more variable sourcing, pictures, and the addition of categories at the bottom of the page.