Talk:Robbie Davis-Floyd

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. Peer reviewers: Sirias.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Replaced global blacklisted reference
I changed reference 28 to a secondary source (the website of the initiative) which as a secondary source establishes the assertion of the article's subject's board membership and editorship. The other to references quoted to establish this seem to be primary and self published. Set the blacklist template to invisible. Ayenaee (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Initial review of article
This is a fantastic start to this article! I've structured mine similarly, so its great to see we're both on the right track. I have a few suggestions: The lead section is truly wonderful, but you might consider only having the first section about Davis-Floyd's authorship with Elizabeth Davis - I'd keep the first sentence and give the rest its own portion for discussion (but more on that later). My only citation concern was a source for her being valedictorian of her high school. Due to the scarcity of information, you could probably combine the Education and Career sections, as they generally tie together. It might also be effective to transfer these bullets into sentence form, which will allow you to also discuss her career outside of only the years she taught. The sentence about her being "a member of the board" would probably work better in the Career/Education sections. I absolutely love your publications section - I think you do a great job of identifying Davis-Floyd's important works. However, you might consider another section below or above which talks about critical reception or influence of her work, and perhaps an overall discussion of her contributions to the field of Anthropology. I'm not sure how in depth you want to go, but elaborating a bit on her major works could also be really effective. Also, don't forget to include any honors or awards her books have won! Like I said, you have such a wonderful framework here and I'm so impressed with what you have already! I can't wait to see the finished article. Dsmith18 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)dsmith18

So far this article looks wonderful. I like the introduction section, you do a great job by mentioning Davis-Floyd's most important accomplishments and publications. I believe it would be really beneficial to expand the first portion of the article into other sections and just focus on a quick insight of Robbie Davis-Floyd's life and contributions to the anthropology field in a few sentences. I think you need a source for the "valedictorian of her high school class" under the Education section. Also, in the Current Work section you should try to include the abbreviation for Friends of Michigan Midwives (which is FoMM). Although the sections of your article are a little empty the structure of it looks very good. I am sure you will find additional sources such as book reviews or journal publications she has done thus far to complete it. Best of luck and keep up the good work!! Sirias (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Sirias

Hey! Just a couple things here. I would drop the word "accomplished" in the first sentence, sounds too biased. "She was the first to analyze obstetric surgical procedures within the American medical system as a ritual" should be cited. I think that there could just be more information added in general, I feel like I'm a little restricted on my review because there isn't a whole lot of body for me to look at, but it looks like it's off to a great start and I'm not seeing anything else glaringly obvious that's wrong here. :) MadelineMMay (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I really liked this article also! I thought that the information was very informative and detailed. There a clear organization on the subject that was easy to follow. I would re-read the beginning introduction to make the wording flow. It is currently a bit choppy and doesn't read very easily. Also drop her full name and just use her "Davis-Floyd when talking about her after a first introduction. Also another addition I might suggest would be to add the impact her work has had on the field, I don't know if any sources covered that and if it would be too biased it might just make it more well rounded. I liked that you defined authoritative knowledge and how it relates to her work. Overall, very impressive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bls1996 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)