User:Iamthedoctor2011/Katherine Aidala/ProfessorCuprous 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?

iamthedoctor2011

Link to draft you're reviewing: Katherine Aidala
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_Aidala&oldid=1095044502

Evaluate the drafted changes

There are some good additions to the section on Early Life, and generally the article is written well. Here are some suggestions:

Lead: The two existing sentences could be combined into one and a bit more detail added. Something like... "Katherine E. Aidala is a physicist and professor at Mount Holyoke College in Mount Hadley, Massachusetts. She directs a physics research program focused on [say what she does and cite] and is an advocate for women in STEM field. She is also Director of the Fumble Maker & Innovation Lab. She has received numerous awards for physics research and education and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society."

Other sections: You could consider separating a "Career" section from an "Awards and Honors" section like there is in Squire Booker's article. The section on "Early life and education" seems more like a "Career" section because it does't say anything about her early life (ie prior to college). Can you add anything about her Early Life in a section separate form her academic career? - her sister is also a research professor in physics, and I think her dad is as well. Her sister's article is here: Christine Aidala.

Regarding the section labeled "Career", this seems more like a summary of her awards. Perhaps re-organize the sections to have "Early Live" (If applicable), "Academic and Research Career", and "Awards and Honors" sections. Or here's another article with a different division of sections: Katherine Franz

Wow! Reference 3 seems notable enough to mention and I don't see it discussed in the article.

Consider a separate "advocacy for Women in STEM" section?

Did she do a post-doc? Its not mentioned, but I am surprised if she didn't.

In either the lead or elsewhere in the article, it should mention that she is a "named" professor - she is the "Kennedy-Shelkunoff Professor of Physics". ^[1]

^ "Katherine Aidala". Mount Holyoke College. 2016-02-05. Retrieved 2022-06-30.

[1] "Katherine Aidala". Mount Holyoke College. 2016-02-05. Retrieved 2022-06-30.

[1]