Talk:David Ginger

Untitled

Citations added to new info. I think we're good here. Thanks for the help everyone. Zach.petersonuw (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I can verify the new information added in the plasmonics and bio-inspired sections. Will add references tomorrow. Zach.petersonuw (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC) We've added more third-party sources and finished adding info about the subjects research. I think we've done enough to remove the various citation needed tags. Thanks for reviewing Zach.petersonuw (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you did a very good job with the distribution of information into separate sections to allow for ease of access by readers. I do think that the heading for each section, such as personal life, career, etc. might do better as their own underlined headers as opposed to being boldface and all listed under the single "David Ginger" section. It also would be beneficial to include more sources, though I am sure this will be the case as time goes on as all of our class's articles are still in the early development phase as of this week and have few sources. The page maintained a neutral tone in its delivery of information, though the included source did not have any in line citations to indicate which specific material was derived from that source. The University of Washington also may not be the most reliable of sources, however, as Professor Ginger is employed by them and thus the information displayed about him may have certain intentions or motives behind it. The article is looking good so far though and I'll be interested in seeing more information about him. Mitchell Booth (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Liaog2022 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)I thought the lead section was easy to understand and very direct. Although the info may be incomplete, so far it does reflect the most important information that already exists within the page. It is also balanced and because not much is known about the topic yet, there seems to be a lot missing but no redundant information. The sections were organized well as I could tell from the draft that the logical positioning of the topic flows. Bringing back the fact that not much is written about the topic, because most of the information probably comes through the university, I believe that the content might not be as neutral as it could be. Nevertheless, because no controversial statements were made throughout the sections, this is a problem that shouldn't cause that big of a deal. In terms of balance, the draft seemed to favor a long list of his accomplishments and seemed to lack information and statements on his personal life and his career, so if more were included on that, then I believe it would be more balanced. Finally, because the sources were mostly from primary sources with some reliable secondary sources, they were therefore reliable.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nate novy, Nathan 0328, Zach.petersonuw. Peer reviewers: Xinruib, Liaog2022, Nbaraz, Psvo277, Mitchell Booth, Aliaj21, MichelleChou18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review by Michelle Chou

I'm so excited to read this article!!! I think for the way Wikipedia articles look, there should be more subheadings rather than the bolded categories that are all in the 'David Ginger' portion. The section 'Personal Life' could probably just be changed to 'Education', since it doesn't really mention family or anything like that. What you have is good, but definitely add more. Side note: wow he has so many awards

Xinrui Bao Peer Review

I think it's a very good start. You have a lot of interesting facts about David Ginger. I think everything your article is relevant to the topic and the tone is neutral. Since this is a page done on a person I think the use of a primary source would be more impactful than a secondary source. One thing to be careful of is the format of your paragraphs; I would use the headings form for sections such as career and early life instead of bolding the titles. Other than that, I am very excited to see your final product!

Xinruib (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Xinrui Bao

Alia Johnson Review

I think this is really good so far, as the language is clear and concise in most places, although I think a few sentences could be reworded so the don't become run-ons. Also, in a couple places, it seems like some of the citations may need to be moved or added to a few sentences that were probably taken from articles or interviews. Other than that I really like it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliaj21 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)