Talk:Diana Carlin

Untitled
Spencer's Comments

1. Are all the parts there?

Yes I would say that all the parts are there. I really liked what you did with the headers because it makes it easier for people to find the information.

2. Is the opening "Hook" strong?

I think that the hook is strong. It is so hard to have a good hook especially when we are talking about people so I think yours was good. You introduced her name first and then what she did which I think was the best way to do it.

3. How's the style?

Overall, it was really well written. I did not see any grammar mistakes throughout the entire article.

4. Overall impressions?

I think that the article was very well composed and you had a lot of great information but I also think you could add more. You only have about 3 paragraphs worth of information on her and I think you might be able to add a little more. Things such as like where has she been throughout her career, where was she from. This might be hard to find because if you could not find it online and they did not email you back you might have trouble but I think with that type of information you could take the article to the next level. Overall though I thought it was very well written and was a good article.

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): Mjhenrymn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Michelle's Feedback
1. Are all the parts there?

Yes all of the necessary information is there. I think the content is very thorough and well written.

2. Is the opening "Hook" strong?

I think your opening hook is good. You were able to establish who she was with a little bit of background information and notoriety.

3. How's the style?

I think the style was very beneficial to the article. It is very clear, especially with the divided sections and headers. The content was direct and to the point, but interesting and informative.

4. Overall impressions?

I think the article is very well written, I don't have really any comments for it to improve other than to write a little more. I think it is a little bit too concise and could be expanded, possibly in the background/focus of research sections. Developing these sections would give a better argument for the importance of your scholar and her contributions through her research and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.lynch (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Good set of comments, but nothing really to change???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aburnett412 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)