User:Lindseycarvalho/sandbox/Louisa Charlotte Tyndall

From sandbox to prepare to move into mainspace K8shep (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Article Evaluation

'''•Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted'''

you?

The article is relevant to the course in the sense that Marie Meurdrac contributed tested ideas of chemistry. Her work seems to have been directed towards women so they could get a clearer understanding of the findings being made.

'''•Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased'''

toward a particular position?

There are no claims made in this article except stating that Marie Meurdrac could have been a porto-feminist.

•Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are not necessarily any viewpoints in this article because it is mainly about her book. I believe her religious beliefs could be picked apart a little more because she brings up God in her introduction about her methods.

'''•Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the'''

article?

The links work and do support the claim within the article to provide information on Marie Meurdrac’s findings and contributions to chemistry.

'''•Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the'''

'''information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

There is not a source connected to things like her book or her dedication letter that is quoted in the article

'''•Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

There is not a lot of information describing her timeline past her work “La Chymie Charitable et Facile, en Faveur des Dames”. The article briefly touches on her religious views but doesn’t go very in depth into how/if they affected her

'''•Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going'''

on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The only conversation under the talk page has to deal with the author explaining ways to edit their work to improve the article. It also explains a controversy between sources on the publication date fro her book.

'''•How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

I do not believe the article is a part of any WikiProjects

•How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked

about it in class?

Marie Mearbrac was not necessarily brought up in class but the article describes her the same way we describe other important people to the history of science, but with a little less information.

Peer Review by Dhenem Lancaster

 * What the article does well I’m impressed with how much content the article has when it had to be made from scratch. It covers a substantial amount of information with no pre-existing article to have a starting point from. The lead is done well and gives the reader a good idea of what the rest of the article will be about.


 * Changes/Suggestions The article goes over a good amount of information but much of it isn’t labeled or put into separate categories. It could divide the content into different sections labeled, “Early life”, or “Professional Career”. This way it could make the article more organized and let the reader know what part of the article they are about to read.


 * Most Important Thing To Improve The most important thing the article could change to improve the article is how it’s organized. The article has a good amount of information but if it were more organized it would make it look neater and make it easier to find certain things within the article.


 * Things From This Article That Could Be Applied To My Own The amount of content and sources is something that could be applied to my own. It was difficult to find sources that covered the section of the article that I was drafting. It was also difficult to find a good amount of organization, but this article does it really well.

Response to Peer Review by Dhenem Lancaster
Thank you Dhenem for the feedback. We will work on organizing and adding structure to the article. I am not sure if we have found enough information for a section titled early life yet because we really haven't found a significant amount of information about her childhood and education besides the country she was born and her family. We can definitely add a section heading for career though. I'm glad you thought the lead section, sources, and content looked good.~

We were slightly struggling with trying to format the article because we found a lot of information and have a lot of wiggle room considering there is no current article to go off of. We sectioned the article into Louisa and John, Career, and Later Life to give the article more format and body. We definitely still have some work to do on structure of information and sentences in general but we really appreciate the feedback!

Article evaluation:

There is technically no article assigned to Louisa Charlotte Tyndall so the goal is to gather and evaluate as much information as possible to be able to create an article on Wikipedia.

Sources:

https://www.rigb.org/blog/2014/october/spotlight-on-louisa-tyndall

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/702293

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/144400901/louisa-charlotte-tyndall

https://www-journals-uchicago-edu.libproxy.mst.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/702293 ~

Article Draft
This is where you will draft your Wikipedia contribution. Please refer to the following resources for help: