User:Maddrose/sandbox

Article Evaluation:
Maria Medina Coeli

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

- Everything in the article is relevant to Maria Medina Coeli and her life. There isn’t anything distracting, however, there seems to be a lot of information that could be missing or information that is not well elaborated on. There isn’t much information on her work with the smallpox vaccination or asbestos treatment, and there isn’t dates for any information except her marriage date.

Is the article neutral?

- It seems as though the article is neutral. It doesn’t use any bias statements such as “the best” or “most important”.

Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?

- I think her work over smallpox vaccination or asbestos treatment is quite underrepresented. There isn’t much detail or even dates on when they happened covering either one of those topics. The article says that her treatment for asbestos is what made her famous, so I feel as if there could be more information to be found and added on the topic.

Check a few citations? Do the links work?

There are no citations in this article. This is a major part to work on and add sources that can contribute to the information that was added to her Wikipedia page.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from?

- No facts are referenced at all, so sources need to be added. Especially since the article claims her asbestos treatment made her famous, but there isn’t any sources referencing that.

Is any information out of date?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

- There aren’t any dates added for any of her work in her life, so I can’t see when these major things she has done happened. Also it seems that a lot of information about her later life is missing and could be added, or if there were any more smaller projects she did besides the smallpox or asbestos projects.

How is the article rated?

Stub class, low-mid importance.

Article addition to Frieda Robscheit-Robbins:
Robscheit-Robbins married O.V. Sprague.

In the year 1915, Robscheit-Robbins married Oscar V. Sprague. Together, the two had one child.

Draft for Frieda Robscheit Robbins Article
Robscheit-Robbins was a part of many societies that pertained to her career including: Society for Experimental Pathology, Physiological Society, and the New York Society for Medical Research. She was president for the Society for Experimental Pathology in 1951 and president for the New York Society for Medical Research in 1952.


 * Note: This information is important because it describes other things that Robscheit-Robbins was a part of in her career and describes that she attained higher up positions (i.e. president) in these societies.

Original: Robscheit-Robbins started working with Whipple in 1917, and was his research partner for 18 years.

Fix: Robscheit-Robbins started working with Whipple in 1917, and she was his research partner for 38 years.


 * Correction to information that was already present in the article.

Original: Born in Germany, Robscheit-Robbins moved to the United States as a child.

Fix: Robscheit-Robbins was born in Euskirchen, Germany in 1893 and moved to the United States as a child.


 * added specific place of birth and need to fix year of birth in article (from 1889 to 1893)

Next, I am going to add a sub-section about the Matthew Effect and how it applies to Robscheit-Robbins.

The Matthew Effect:

The Matthew Effect is the phenomenon in which a person receives credit for an achievement or publication over their co-contributors due to name recognition and/or gender bias. This effect applies to Robscheit-Robbins because of her omission from the winning of the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1934. The Nobel Prize instead went to George Hoyt Whipple and two other male scientists despite Robscheit-Robbins being a co-author for a majority of the publications that were written. Robscheit-Robbins was not recognized for the work she performed with Whipple and is a prime example of the Matthew Effect taking place in the history of science.