User:Jugem Jugem 1945/Ivan Yaeger/DerekE9831 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

JoeyFungus, Chrisg774, Doodlerob, NickOden

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Aliciab5334/Regina Gwynn

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

This section seems is very concise and to the point. In my opinion, it fits well with what a lead section should be. My suggestions for improvement are mostly mechanical here. For instance, the "b" in "Born" when referencing his date of birth should probably be lowercase. "Prosthetics" should be lowercase. In the second sentence, you can probably remove the comma after "He is the founder" since there's no need for a pause there. Any you should also add a comma after "Foundation" in the last sentence, so it reads "Yaeger Foundation, Inc."

The lead could also use a reference or two to back up the information there.

Education

Last sentence, change "4" to "four" at the beginning of the sentence.

Work

I would change the title to "Career" rather than "Work" but that may just be a matter of preference.

The phrasing at the beginning--"all the way back to his time in..."--comes across as if it's written from a personal rather than neutral perspective. Maybe something along the lines of "Yaeger's experience in prosthetics research began..." might come across as more neutral.

In the same paragraph, it's mentioned that he received a patent for a "girl with a rare disease." The way it's written makes it seem like he received a patent for a girl. I'm sure the patent is for some sort of invention or idea, but it's not clear with the way it's written.

Stylistically speaking, I think you can remove the word "the" from references to the Yaeger Foundation, at least with the way it's currently written. It's unnecessary, unless it's part of the proper title of his company.

Patents

The mention of his patents is a great addition to this article. My biggest suggestion on these, though, would be to tone down the descriptions of the patents a bit. In my opinion, it take away from the purpose of the article to describe how each of his inventions functions mechanically. Since the purpose of the article is about Ivan Yaeger the person and his life and contributions to society, I think this section could be improved by simply mentioning a brief description of each device he holds a patent for, and what its uses and purposes are, but leave out some of the details of how they function. If you can find an article that explains these devices or technologies, maybe it'd be useful to provide an internal Wikipedia link, if one exists. Then, if the reader is interested in how those devices work, rather than just the person who made them, they can follow those link to learn more.

From a grammar perspective, I was curious about the use of the present perfect tense when mentioning the filing dates of the patents. This came across as a bit awkward to me as I was reading it. A simple "was" seems more concise in these instances. Unless of course there is a certain stylistic standard when referencing patent filing dates that I'm unaware of, I think simplifying these sentences would improve the readability of your article.

Awards

I don't have much to critique in this section, other than the heavy use of one reference, which I'll touch on more in the next section.

References

The references you do have appear very strong to me. My only comment here is your heavy reliance on just two out of the three references. Based off of what I've read here, Ivan Yaeger seems like a highly accomplished person. Surely there are a couple of more legitimate references out there? If you did find one or two, I think your article would come across as much stronger by having them spread all throughout. As it is right now, the continuous references to the same two articles sticks out. I think even if you found references that only contain redundant information, your article could still be improved, even if you're just citing multiple references for singular bits of information.

Overall Impression

Ultimately, I think this draft is very strong and well-written. Other than the minor parts I mentioned, it has a neutral and informative tone throughout, and provides solid information based off of your references. I think the biggest improvement that could be made would be your references. Of course, if there isn't anything else available, then what you have is likely sufficient. But if you can find more, it'll only strengthen your article. Otherwise, I think the article is well-organized, informative, and easy to follow.