Talk:Amparo Acker-Palmer

Peer Review
I think this article does a good job of following the wikipedia style writing. It gives information about Amparo Acker-Palmer very concisely and with easy to understand efficient language. There are some improvements that can be made to make this article even more concise and clear. For example you have a scentece that start with "After graduating, she later received a Postdoctoral Fellowship." This I think can be changed to something like "After graduating, she completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship." Keeping this kind of efficiency in mind as you keep refining this article will make it very useful. The organization also is very logical, although if I were you I would separate education and career as two different sections. I would also encourage you to increase the amount of information in the info box at the top right of the page so that people get get the information they need quickly. I would also encourage you to add a picture of Amparo Acker-Palmer although I understand this can be challenging due to rights. To get a better idea of how you can better your article, and what is important to talk about on a page about a women scientist I would suggest you visit pages such as the one for Jennifer Doudna who has a very strong page. This can show you what is appropriate to have as sections in your article, what should go into each section, as well as how to fill out your information box.Humanpersonfromhere2 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review by blueboombox
Overall the article reads clearly and is organized similarly to other scientist Wikipedia pages. The language is logical, efficient, and concise. Combining education and career makes sense, however the paragraph style may be overwhelming the information. If there were breaks between grouped time points then it would read easier and be more readily accessed if the reader was looking for a specific point in her life. I see no major revision requirements, but several minor areas that can be altered. For example, the sentence "At Goethe University she was then nominated as Professor of Cluster of Excellence "Macromolecular Complexes" in 2007" could be revised by removing the "then". The citing is mildly confusing for the research section. For the sentence "However, the validity of the study's data was placed under scrutiny by Nature's readers due to its questionable figures," there should be a citation for the scrutiny. The next cite is for the article [9] and the end of the three descriptions has a new cite [10]. It may help clarify the source of the information if the sentence mentioned before contains a cite for where the scrutiny came from either [9] or [10]. Aside from the small adjustments this article was prepared well and executed to the level that Wikipedia intends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboombox (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to the article in light of some of these suggestions. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 04:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)