Talk:Ann C. Palmenberg

Untitled
The following must be immediately addressed:
 * There is a lot of great information on A.C. Palmenberg on her website and in other areas. The lists the you have PASTED in are totally unacceptable. You MUST change most of these lists into narrative sections.
 * The notable publications section should be modified to show the complete APA style reference list for each publication. Discussion of the articles should be moved to a section describing her research contributions.
 * Sections that should be kept - Research Technologies (but changed into some description of these technologies, NOT JUST A LIST); Notable Publications (edited as above); Professional Services (edit the format so that it is a bulleted list - the wikimarkup is not correct); Awards (edit the format so that it is a bulleted list - the wikimarkup is not correct);
 * The Research expertise section needs to be completely changed. It should be titled research contributions or something similar and it should be a 2-3 paragraph description of her contributions to virology.
 * Notable publications should be the last section.
 * www.warf.org pdf is NOT an acceptable source. Please use the original articles for the technologies as your sources.S L Seston (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Self-Assessment Related to Article on Ann C Palmenberg
Does the lead section follow Style Guidelines? Does the content accurately represent the cited sources? Is the writing clear, comprehensible, and doesn't use too much jargon? Do the contents of each section belong in that section? In other words, is each section coherent, and in concord with the section heading? Are there gaps in the content? (What is missing?) Are there places where there is ambiguity or inaccuracy over which sources are supporting what content? Could the content be structured differently? You could suggest alterations in the order of sentences, paragraphs or sections for organizational purposes. Are there parts of the article that are not clearly explained, and could cause questions to arise in the mind of a reader? Is the content within Wikipedia's guidelines (such as neutral point of view) and does it avoid plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing?
 * Yes, I believe that the lead section follows the style guidelines well, including the brief info box with a picture of rhinovirus, the virus that Ann C Palmenberg has spent much of her time studying. This picture is taken from the wikimedia commons. I had originally used a picture of Ms. Palmenberg with permission from the man who posted the picture online, however it was still taken down from the website.
 * Yes, all information within the article has been cited correctly and accurately represents the cited sources. All information has been clarified through the use of links to the original source or other wiki sites. This is for the convenience of the interested reader.
 * Throughout writing this article, I made a conscious effort to avoid jargon, however this was difficult when discussing the technologies she has invented. For this reason I have included many links to other Wikipedia pages for clarification. I had the article proofread by a non-scientist for clarity. We both agree that the article is clear, concise, and easily comprehendible.
 * All sections are laid out very specifically with an informative section header. Each section discusses only what is related to the section header, with accurate information and links to appropriate sources.
 * The only gaps in information are unavailable through simple research. This information is the biographical information about Ann Palmenberg. She has made great attempts to keep her life private, and has therefore made it impossible to find free biographical information.
 * No. All content has been verified with several sources. I have also made sure to proofread the article for inaccuracies several times.
 * After editing the page, I do not think I would have structured the article any differently. I have made it easy to follow through the use of bullet points and paragraphs where necessary.
 * I do not believe that there are sections left unexplained. I have made a great effort to include links to all appropriate websites and wiki pages in order to make the content clear at all levels of science expertise.
 * Yes. I kept all content informative, but without bias. There is no plagiarism within the article. All information has been properly cited in order to allow the reader to view the information for themselves, as well as to gain a further understanding of the content.

I have addressed all issues that were in the feedback received from my instructor. I have not gotten any peer feedback for any further review. Lelisabeth89 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)