Talk:Kathy Schick

Peer Review by Darceyg315
1. In your Lead, you guys did a great job of transitioning from her anthropological career to including her technical work. It is very clear that she has prioritized her anthropological work for many years but has started shifting towards the evolution of the  technological age. Overall, the language used was great, strictly informational, had no bias comments and was very organized and easy to read and follow.

2. In your Early Life section there doesn't seem to be much information, is there possibly more you could find? If not, you can even change the section from Early Life to Personal Life. In the Education section, there is a sentence that talks about her meeting her husband then marrying him in 1976. I think you should keep the Education section strictly as Education and you can add things about her relationship in the Early Life/Personal Life. Overall it seems like their partnership plays a big role in her career so you could mention him in your Early Life, to add more content in that section. In the Lead, you could benefit from making it a bit shorter because a lot of the things you mention in the Lead, you end up mentioning again in the sections. Works that are not major topics in your page, can be taken out. This would be an improvement because you would be giving the reader a brief lead that would make them want to continue reading, instead of drowning them with information in the Lead.

3. I think the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article is to add more information Early Life, even if it is just including things like her marriage to her research colleague. This could improve the article because the entire article is about her professional life, so adding things about her personal life makes her more personable to the reader. Another important change would be to cut down your Lead and make it brief to only include major topics. One last thing is to be more precise with the time like you guys have a few of sentences that include, "many years" and "a few years", that could be better by including the specific amount of years she had spent doing those things. 4. Something I noticed in your article that could be applicable to my own article is your unbiased language. You guys did such a great job of not adding any unnecessary words. My article could be more better by looking for any unnecessary words and sticking to unbiased language.

5. I made a few mechanical changes like spacing after punctuation that was not there. I also changed the organization of a sentence so that it would flow better. Darceyg315 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Darceyg315

Peer Review by Amberdomanus
1. This article did very well at keeping neutrality with the language used throughout the article. I found basically no points where it sounded like it was biased. I also felt that it was organized well, in a way that was easy to navigate.

2. The changes I suggest would just be that perhaps you could be more precise in your lead into her biography because it seems a bit long and some things in it could be cut down and just explained in further sections. It would help avoid repetitive information.

3. To improve the article, the most important thing would be to review sources and to make sure they're independent. If a source was written by the person the wikipedia biography is about (like her curriculum vitae or books), it isn't independent. Maybe find reliable reviews of the books or independent articles about them for sourcing.

4. I noticed multiple levels of topic organization in your article that could be helpful to make ours more organized as well as your neutral language.

5. I made a minor change of just linking to her college, and also I took out one of the links to your first reference because I wasn't sure how to remove the entire reference and it didn't seem to be an independent source along with a couple other sources written by her. Amberdomanus (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by Theresa9841
1. You guys did really good on finding extensive information on the subject. I also think you guys did a good job in your lead because you were able to pick up information to sprinkle in it which you would then explain more through in later paragraphs. Like my group members, I also thought that it was very organized and I would be able to find where to find each topic or each part of her life. I liked how everything was in depth. I also think it’s cool how you were able to figure out how to add the picture.

2. For paragraphs like the lead or the research of the Acheulean, it looks like just a big chunk of information and honestly when I first saw them, I didn’t want to immediately jump into reading them because it just seemed like a lot of work. I would cut them into smaller paragraphs so it looks spread out and easier to read. For example, the way you did it in the Fieldwork and Research section. I think it makes all the information less intimidating to read.

3. I think the most important thing you guys can fix is to add a section about what she accomplished like her legacy. For example, has she won anything that represents her work? I think having this would allow her to be a person of notability.

4. I think my article should use more of the straightforward and neutral tone that you use in yours. It’s very direct and not hidden under fancy words which makes the reader able to grasp the content faster and easier.

5. I fixed the placements of the citations, for example moved it all after the period and moved those in the middle of sentences to the end. Theresa9841 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review by JanuWHy
1. The strongest part of your article is the incredible dept of information and detail you have gathered and contributed to paint a very coherent picture of who you are really talking about. The article is well organized, cited properly and utilizes mostly neutral language. I also found how you discussed parts of her findings very impressive even though they do not particularly connect to her biography.

2. I would recommend making the language and voice used in the article more active, while also making your sentence structures more concise. I think it would make it easier for the reader to follow and understand all the information better.

3. The most important thing would be to make the information more digestible and filling in the missing sections.

4. I think I could improve my article by learning from how you organized your information and put in images to make it more engaging for the reader.

5. The changes I made were fixing some phrasing and minor errors like missing words, repetition and grammar in fhe last few sections.

JanuWhY (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)