Talk:Emily Aston

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): Belle2018, Rose gold12. Peer reviewers: Krystal Structure, Biobelle5, PinkPanther4597, Belleissimo01, Wikiassign247.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:40, 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): Abibo98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
Emily Aston was a British chemist primarily known for her high publication output during the late 1800s.1 Aston appeared on 14 publications over a sixteen year period (1886-1902); a rather notable feat for women chemists during that time period.1 Gaining bachelor's in both chemistry and geology, she was able to conduct research on a broad range of topics, including mineral analysis, atomic weight determination, and molecular surface energy.1, 2 She was even appointed a science research scholarship by Her Majesty's Commissioners in 1895 to proceed with research that would be beneficial to the country.3

I think you have a great start to a really good lead! You seem to summarize her main accomplishments in a concise manner. I would be careful though with statements like "a rather notable feat for women chemist during that time period." This seems to be biased and not strictly informative. Also, when saying "she was even appointed" kind of gives a suggestion that there might be some bias, so maybe write something along the lines of "she was appointed," or get rid of this in the lead and add it to a sections later discussing awards or something. Wikiassign247 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I definitely went back and changed a few things based on what you said. Very helpful information. Rose gold12 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a great start to the article! I agree that maybe rewording statements such as "a rather notable feat for women chemists during that time period" would help to maintain neutrality in the article, at least in the lead section. Also you could include Aston's birth and death years in the lead section. This is very well written so far and I look forward to reading more!Biobelle5 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Biobelle5
 * Thank you. I made sure to add in her birth year so that way people could get a better timeline. Rose gold12 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the other peer reviewers that there is some phrasing that may indicate bias, specifically about the notability of her work. You do a nice job of speaking succinctly. One other improvement I would suggest is to edit the last couple of sentences in the "career" section. You had been writing chronologically before, then had a bit of a break to talk about her publications, then went back to the chronological structure. Maybe put the part where she dropped out of research at the end of the first paragraph in that section, then note that in her xx year career she published xx papers. Krystal Structure (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I definitely went back and changed up the order of the information a bit based on your peer review. Rose gold12 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is very well written. You mentioned how Aston had a high publication output, which I thought was interesting. Some articles include a list of articles published by the woman scientist. If you have the access to those articles, then a list of what she published would make a nice addition to the article. Overall, job well done! PinkPanther4597 (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)