Talk:Kiki Sanford/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is second on my "to-review list". Will have my comments up by the end of the week at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * Specify exactly what Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour is as someone who is unfamiliar with her may not understand what you are talking about. The lead should have a comprehensive overview of the article.
 * When you expand the “Science communications” section, expand the lead to match it.

Biography

 * There are a couple issues with the images. The image in the “Biography” section needs a better alt. Do not identify Sanford in the alt. and use more abstract language to describe it. Use “upright” with this image as well. This particular image seems far too large for the article as it overwhelms two smaller sections and I am wondering if the image can be resized to be smaller as it is rather large at the moment.
 * For the caption for the image in the infobox, use Sanford's full name. For the caption of the other infobox, remove Dr. and refer to her by her last name.
 * Do we have any information about her family or parents? If so I would include it in the “Biography” section. I would also rename the “Biography” section as “Personal life” or something similar as the section does not represent her entire life as the title suggests.
 * Can you expand on Sanford’s decision to shift away from research? You briefly mention she found “academic bureaucracy unappealing”, but I think you should discuss this point more as it would add to the overall coverage of the subject.
 * The sentences about her experiences with taekwondo seem somewhat disconnected from the rest of the section so I am curious about the relevance of it for the article.
 * I am not sure why you use the transition “but” in describing her move. That word does not seemed appropriate for this case. I would revise this sentence.

Science communications

 * You alternate between referring to her as "Sanford" and "Kiki". Refer to her as one or the other throughout the entire article.
 * I have a lot of problems with the structure of this sentence. It reads more like a resume turned into prose. You need to fully explain and expand on all the different jobs Kiki goes through (as I stated below). The section is very unorganized and needs more clarify. A majority of the text reads as either descriptions/advertisements for the shows or programs she was a part of rather than explaining her involvement in each.
 * What do you mean by “known as ‘Dr. Kiki’”? Is she marketed with that name? Does she advertise with that name? Any information on how that nickname came about? Where does this nickname come from? I would clarify and expand this point as it is central to her identity in the podcast.
 * Rework the first sentence of the second paragraph as it reads awkwardly.
 * The second paragraph reads more like an advertisement for This Week in Science than about Kiki Sanford. Do you have any information about how she founded the radio show/podcast? About her work on the podcast? That needs to be addressed in the article.
 * This section reads like a list of her work without any real connections being made. Do you have any research on why Sanford decided to do work with Food Science? Or about why/how she co-hosted Popsiren? This section needs a lot of revision and expansion.
 * If the name “Dr. Kiki” came from Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour, then it is strange how you lead the section with that rather than put it near the actual podcast. Again, the structure needs to work to put everything in a coherent order.
 * Clarify exactly what "TWiT.tv" is for someone who may be unfamiliar with it.

Awards

 * Citation in the first sentence should be at the end of the sentence not in the middle.
 * Comma after fellowship
 * The final sentence needs to be restructured as it reads very awkwardly. It may be better to separate it in two sentences.

General comments

 * I appreciate all the work and time put into this article, but it needs substantial expansion and revision before it can be considered for GA. I will leave the nomination open to see if we can work to expand it, but this honestly will take a lot of work. The “Science communication” section is very unorganized and I would highly encourage you to look at other articles from the education WikiProject for examples on how to improve it. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't be able to begin to work on this for a few days, and it looks like it'll take a few weeks to update it. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. Take all the time you need and let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. Thank you for letting me know and I will leave this review open to better accommodate your schedule. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I believe this article needs a lot of revision and expansion and is a pretty long way from qualifying as a GA, I am going to ❌ it so that you can work on it on your own time and renominate it at your own pace.