Talk:Jo McDonald

Britt's peer review
I like that your lead is brief and informative. Personally, I would replace the word 'important' with one that is more neutral. Maybe something like, 'McDonald is known/recognized for her contributions to research concerning Australian rock art'.

I would be interested to know what exactly McDonald does at the University of Western Australia. I assume she is teaching there, but it wouldn't hurt to clarify that in your article.

It looks like y'all are going to expand on specific examples of McDonald's work on Australian rock art, which is great because it will help to illustrate her contributions to the field beyond superficial generalizations.

Overall, I've no doubt that the framework you've chosen will be very effective once you've more information filled in. Again, I think it would be totally cool to keep the article short and sweet, as long as you're able to give examples/share specific details to support broader statements.

Brittle89 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Angela's Peer Review
The lead is very simple and to the point. The second part of the lead is phrased very strangely. The reader is supposed to be told that Australian rock art is what her focus is and that it's what she has contributed most to, not that she is "important" to the research. Mentioning the rock art is an important topic about McDonald, so it is a good contribution to the article.

The information given is in chronological order and in terms of the content of it, it flows well.

The article is fairly neutral. I would remove the phrase "especially important" when discussing her research topic. There is not much information about what she specifically did with the rock art and it does not specify her PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjejordan (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)