Talk:Lucy Sanders

Untitled
Peer Review

1. Well written and easy to understand? The article is clear and comprehensible. However, the second sentence in the Early Age and Education section is kind of confusing in its wording. Consider breaking up the thought into multiple sentences to make it more readable and direct.

2. Verifiable sources? After looking at the sources cited in the article, we feel that they are all verifiable and unbiased. A lot of sources are used, and you do a good job of pulling information from different types of sources.

3. Hyperlinks? The pages your hyperlinks link out to seem reputable, and there is a large number of them. However, there are a few things that Wikipedia has pages for that could use a link, such as "R&D manager," "Denver Public Schools," "Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation" under Professional Careers. (Also, link "Robert Schnabel" in the NCWIT section.) Most of the proper nouns should have at least something that they can be linked to to offer further insight on what your article is talking about. Additionally, there are a fair amount of articles linking to Sanders' page, but consider adding more.

4. Neutral point of view? In the first sentence of the Professional Career section, you refer to Sanders as "Lucy." Generally, biographies refer to their subjects by last name, which helps to prevent adding a biased personal feel to the work. Other than that, your article is very factual and utilizes a neutral point of view, so good job!

5. Images? Yes, you have a good selection of pictures. The only thing we noticed was that Sanders' headshot is sort of unflattering and doesn't really look like her in the other pictures due to the harsh lighting and camera angle. Maybe consider finding a new image to serve as the "main picture" for your article, but if that's the best picture you can find it should be good.

6. Organization and structure? Could NCWIT be a sub-category of Professional Career? If anything, we feel it would definitely improve the flow of the article by moving NCWIT to be above Publications. Also, make sure your headers use proper capitalization.

7. Encyclopedic/lead section? The lead section is good, including the main highlights of the article and Sanders' career. Consider adding a See Also, External Links and/or Further Reading section to bring in even more information at the end.

8. General comments: Under the NCWIT section, "girls and women" is redundant. In Early Age and Education, "bachelors" should be "bachelor's." Otherwise, you guys did a really nice job!

ButTheKitchenSink (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Androiduser88 (UTC) Nihaalrk (UTC)
 * 1. Wording of Early age question was changed
 * 3. Links were added to all of the mentioned nouns except for "Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation", as no wikipedia page exists
 * 4. Lucy switched to Sanders
 * 5. This is the image that is used on the NCWIT mainpage for her headshot
 * 6. NCWIT section moved to before Publications
 * 7. Added "See also" section
 * 8. "girls and women" changed to "women", "bachelors" changed to "bachelor's"
 * TriTriAgain (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC), Finch_Beak, Ktr7477