Talk:Cordelia Stanwood

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hrm0815. Peer reviewers: Pham8713, Harg6896, Wickersham94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 16 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Siewint. Peer reviewers: Sydmrobinson, JLM1935, Chasemcbee, Brittenallen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]
I have found these resources to start this article: ,, and Hrm0815 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016).

Today, I drafted my article's "lead Section."Hrm0815 (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016)

Feedback/ Peer Review
I thought the article was very informative and interesting. One of my concerns in regard to the article was how vague some of the events named in the article were. For example: When speaking about the mental breakdown of Cordelia Stanwood, the article was a bit uninformative. In regards to the structure of the article, it was well established and the numbers of headers were sufficient for the information that was given. I also encountered that the links provided in the article seem to accomplished a good academic background and peer revision. JLM1935 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)JLM1935

Feedback/ Peer Review
Overall, I thought the article was informative and concise. I did not notice any errors in spelling or grammar. I think the information in this article was presented in an academic, encyclopedic tone as well as non-persuasive. I do think the article needs more headers and sections. I would try "Career" or "Personal Life." I think this would help make the article easier to read and the information easier to present. Good luck! Pham8713 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I just put in new headings:)Hrm0815 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016)

Looking good!
Hey! Your article is looking good so far! I would like to see some of her photography under the photography section along with some of the background on the photo. I think it would give good perspective on her and her life. Just my opinion. Harg6896 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to find a picture once and I came up short. There are not many pictures out there when you go to insert a picture from the internet. You can see a picture of her at the Birdsacre website, but I'm not sure how to get that on Wikipedia. Thanks for reviewing! Hrm0815 (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_Since_the_17th_Century_(Fall_2016)

Evaluate Wikipedia
Everything in the article appeared to be relevant to the topic, Cordelia Stanwood. The only distracting element that drew me away was the mention on the book by Marcia Bonta. I would have worded it initially... "Marcia Bonta describes Stanwood in her book as, "Too proud to accept help from anyone, even her siblings, she was reduced in her old age to selling greeting cards from door to door." I would have also liked to learn more about her photography work. There isn't much background to that area in her life, just a highlight. Overall, great work! Siewint (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)