Talk:Camilla Stivers

ekh 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review:
Content The lead section is evident, the overview is useful however should include a formatting that is similar to the most bibliographies which include a concise overview of the profession the individual, the date of birth and significance, the information provide doesn't give a date of birth of death(if necessary. The key points/sub-points are some what unclear The contribution need more information about her personal life howeever this is only a draft so its a respectable amount of information The points that are presented in this text are well supported Thesis and analytic focus The focus of the topic is clear The information seems appropriate to the case Representativeness The contribution could use more perspective on other scholars views on her and her work The tone is appropriate however for the information given Sourcing details Claims aren't cited with references and doesn't really have many sources Neutrality The article has some non-neutral tones without supporting citations. No, The article sometimes states opinions as facts Yes The Coverage is very balanced just could use more elements and content to the paper Readability A. The paper is very well written Sentences are carefully crafted to be grammatically correct Yes Yes Yes B. Yes Yes Yes C. No D. No there should be pictures however \  Open Ended Questions Question One The topic its self seems interesting and she seems like an important scholar in academia Question Two More Content Pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.251.150 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)