User talk:Analiese Batchelor/sandbox

Article Evaluation Notes on the articles entitled "Robert Boyle" and "Scientific Revolution":

Robert Boyle The introductory paragraph of the Robert Boyle article is not obviously organized according to relevancy. For example, the first four sentences introduce Boyle’s nationality, fields of discipline, and scientific accomplishments. However, the last sentence of the introduction, concerning Boyle’s religious inclination, seems out of place. Even though it also includes information relevant to the prior discussion of Boyle’s interests, it lacks the detail with which his other works had been introduced, and as a result, this final sentence can possibly be perceived as an afterthought. Similarly, the article’s section on Boyle’s theological interests, positioned immediately before one listing his scientific awards and honors, also can potentially be viewed as an appendage. It is possible to avoid this perception by placing this passage immediately before the final section chronologically listing Boyle’s works.

A lapse in the article’s neutrality occurs in a reference to Boyle’s fulfillment of his scientific work as being more successful within a certain geographic region. Because it is not made evident that this was Boyle’s express sentiment towards his own work, it is possible that this sentence can be interpreted as a reflection of the author’s own attitude towards Boyle’s ability to conduct his work.

Citations, such as the third one, which are from biased sources, note such bias. For example, the third citation reflects the express opinions of an individual contemporary of Boyle’s towards his work. This bias is noted, as the citation is contained within a section listing Boyle’s influences, and thus, the bias is attributed to the particular person who expressed it.

The article has been rated in the B-class. As a result, improvements, such as the aforementioned changes to existing citations, are required.

Scientific Revolution The citation numbered 115 provides a link to an official website, which is a poor source, and this implicit bias is not acknowledged within the article.

The article has been rated in the B-class, acknowledging that more expert opinions are required for certain sections of the article. In order for this article to become more comprehensive, smaller sub-sections, such as one entitled “Empiricism”, under the section “Scientific Method”, need to be expanded, and need to include a greater diversity of citations.

The final section, designated for discussing criticisms of the existence of the Scientific Revolution, as well as of views within modern science and towards the Renaissance, would benefit from a broader discussion of influential perspectives within the history of science, from both contemporary and pre-modern articulations on the subject. While another Wikipedia article, entitled “Historical revisionism” is cited in an effort to benefit this discussion, the referenced article is also rated as B-class, indicating a general need for continued attention to this subject area within Wikipedia. In order to provide an unbiased article about the Scientific Revolution, a section dedicated to the presentation of   viewpoints which counter the very existence of this historical phenomenon is of vital importance. Three distinct viewpoints are presented in this section, but only a limited number of proponents have been referenced with respect to each, and some citations, such as number 127, are nearly ten years old, but the article lacks acknowledging any subsequent, more recent contributions to the theory.

Plant breeder's rights - Peer Review
Do you have a citation for this sentence? "While the current legislature of the convention recognizes novel varieties of plants as intellectual property, laws were formed concerning the preservation of seeds for future plantation, such that the need to buy seeds to use in subsequent planting seasons would be significantly reduced, and even potentially eliminated altogether." It's fine except it might be useful to have a citation for the last bit that talks about potential elimination just to ensure it is not regarded as opinion or conjecture.

I think it might also be useful for you to switch the two sections you wrote. While they work as is, I think the idea of plants being regarded as intellectual property might kind of make the claim for why certain laws, international or domestic, need to be enacted. If you prefer the order you have it definitely works this way as well!

I read through for grammar/vocab and I think it was spot on -- there was nothing for me to restructure either. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliereid (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
I agree with the necessary citation reference mentioned above, otherwise, everything looked pretty solid to me. I would maybe try adding a picture or further subdividing the headings to break up the text a little bit. It would also be a good idea to include more internal links to other Wikipedia pages. Other than that, your sources look good, your tone is clear and Wikipedia-friendly and your article is well-organized. Good job! Vconstant (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)