Talk:Wendy Ross

Untitled
Hi looks like you all don't have your sources/references in the sandbox, I would recommend adding that and then adding the citations as footones, as this is the Wikipedia style --T. Danylevich (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ruth Axton Peer Evaluation Wiki Peer Review

1.	The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents? It tells who she is and what she does, but it doesn’t set up what will come in the rest of the page. The lead should at least hint to each of the sections involved.

2.	The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors? There are a few sources listed, facebook and linked in. Although these souces may contain information about Dr. Ross, you can not cite a living persons facebook or linked in profile because it will inevitable contain bias. It would be better served if there were source written by someone else about Dr. Ross or records from her hospitals/schools.

3.	Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest?

No, there could be links to the children’s hospital in Boston or the Albert Einstein Medical Center, where she was the director.

4.	Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? There are no external links. I would try and incorporate citations into the sandbox in order to make it easier to transfer into a live page.

5.	What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons?

I think that this page could benefit from sources discussing her CNN award, because this could be a major part of the article but there is northing drafted under the heading as of now. The page uses primary sources for a living person, which is against the Wikipedia guidelines for biography of a living person. They have generally the same organization of sections but they could be rearraigned to include personal life at the very end or directly after the lead. This would help with the continuity of her work and research and then transition into her legacy and awards won for her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthaxton (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Eva Fortunato Wiki Peer Review

1.The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents?

-The lead is specific and provides good information about what her work is about, but maybe give a little bit more of a summary of what each section is about in order to make it longer.

2.The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors?

-The writing is objective, but relatively sparse. You have good information about her education and her work experience, but not a lot of information about why her work is important or why we need to learn about her. Your page is also not correctly formatted or separated by section so that is something you guys can work to add.

3.Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest?

-You don’t have any linked pages, but you could add links to the universities you mentioned, and the CNN Heroes award, even autism, or behavioral pediatrician

4.Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? -no external links—add some citations

5.What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons? -talk more about the depth of her work and why she is important to learn about. You talk about her in a neutral way which is good because it is in the guidelines of talking about a women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efortch (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Palmer Nix WIKI peer review:

1. The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents? This gives brief information of regarding Wendy Ross and her life. But, I think there is room for expansion on specifics of her professional experience.

2. The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors?

There is one source (Linked in) that is seen a couple of times. The more information that is added, the more room for extra sources, but overall this information could be cited a bit better.

3. Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? There are no links to other pages in wikipedia.

4. Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest? There doesn’t seem to be any external links/other pages.

5. What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons?

Overall, this just needs more information in order to better articulate the life and work done in Wendy Ross’s work of autism development and behavioral pediatrician work. With more information will come more sources that need to be cited. This is a good start that has potential to be an impactful wiki page.

Chloe Peer Review 1.The lead: does it give us a clear overview of the page and contents?

I think there could be more information in the lead, but the information that is there is clear. 2.	The writing overall: is it well-sourced (i.e. every statement and fact has a source, even if it repeats) and is it neutral, objective, and unbiased; does it contain errors?

There are sources for almost every statement made, but not all in the professional experience section. The writing is neutral and objective and seems to be error free. 3.	Are there links to other pages within wikipedia? Do these make sense? What might you suggest?

There are no links to other pages yet. I think they could link to the Children’s Hospital Boston and the Albert Einstein Medical Center.

4.	Are there “external links”? Do these make sense? What might you suggest?

There are no external links. As citations are added in the Wikipedia format, it would be good to link to those sources. 5.	What do you think this piece could benefit from, overall, assuming the sources/information are available? Finally, does it adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of biographies of (a) women and (b) (if relevant) living persons?

This piece is good overall, it just needs to be finished and polished a little bit. Cgk38 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Chloe

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mgb86, Hwh12, Femi-Orisamolu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this new article, but it looks like a repeat of Ms. Ross's resume and an ad for her clinic. A Wikipedia article should focus on professional media notice that she has gotten FOR her activities. For pointers, follow the links in the notice at the top of the page. If these issues are not resolved, future editors may call for the article to be deleted..

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 02:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)