Talk:Sara Imari Walker

practice
First time using a talk page Gmarquartmsg (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Peer-review of first draft
In talking about Walker's education, I would change the sentence talking about the Florida Institute of Technology saying she "graduated cum laude earning a B.S. in Physics in 2005." Also, cum laude isn't supposed to be italicized according to my writing guide but it could be wrong so just double check.

You used the wrong "to" in the research section. Also, in this section, you could probably combine the content of the second, third, and fourth sentences into two since it comes off a little repetitive or monotonous and would vary sentence length a little bit. It looks like you are adding more here so we can go over anything new later.

I would link the public engagement section to Wikipedia's Science education article. Also, add more internal links for some more terms concerning research and organizations/televsion shows.

You also used the wrong "it's" in the organizations section. It's supposed to be "its." Also, for this section, you could probably tabulate it or just list the sections since there isn't much going on here.

Bclif (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained maintenance tags
Over the past year, this article seems to have accumulated a number of maintenance tags that have no explanations on this talk page and that seem unwarranted to me:


 * The most concerning of these is Undisclosed Paid, since that seems like a pretty serious accusation. I have read this entire page and reviewed its history, and it was clearly created as part of an organized class project. This seems like pretty clear evidence that it was not paid. The article has not had anything substantial added since. The latest consensus on Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid appears to be that this tag can be removed if an uninvolved editor reads the article, deems it unsubstantiated, and leaves a note on the talk page. As an uninvolved editor, I'm going to ahead and remove it after leaving this message.
 * I also question the Cleanup-PR and Tone tags. Obviously these are more subjective, but I fail to see any portions of this article that are not encyclopedic. Similarly, none of the sources appear to be routine coverage or sensationalism.
 * Notability (academics) is always tricky. I personally would argue that Dr. Walker's contributions to her field are indeed sufficiently notable to meet the criteria, but I do not currently have time to dig up sufficient sources to remove the tag.
 * All that said, I think the third-party and BLP sources tags are currently warranted. I am confident that good sources exist, but someone should go find them and add them to this article.

Seaotternerd (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC) SeaOtterNerd
 * Agreed. See Who Gets To Be Notable And Who Doesn't: Gender Bias On Wiki.  This is a good example of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Broken Link
The Link Emergence@ASU gave me a 404, so I will replace with a link to http://emergence.asu.edu/pi.html Weka511 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)