User talk:Hansonztk/sandbox

Marshall's Peer Review #1
I recommend adding additional information to your lead section. The current focus seems to be on her birth, whereas it might be better to orient the lead section around her work in STEM. Why is she important in STEM history? I think using this information in the lead section will encapsulate the entire point of the article without causing redundancy within the article itself. While her family is important to her biography, I recommend adding that information to a specific subsection within the article itself.

At the moment, you have a fairly logical order to your category headings. I would recommend discussing her publications toward the end of the article... but it's up to you. I think chronological order might be the easiest to follow along with... so perhaps play around with the order of your categories to give your readers an easier time understanding your article.

I recommend adding addition information to the categories about her life and accomplishments, and putting slightly less emphasis on specific publications (unless they are critical to her relevance in STEM history).

I think you've done a good job of writing neutral content... so keep that up as you continue to edit! Be sure to look out for words that have connotations. You use the word "successfully" which might give a positive connotation. Just be aware of words like that.

You're doing a good job with sources. Just remember to keep citing sources when you make statements. Your sources appear reliable and establish notability.

Cheers

Marshallbaxter15 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Owen's Peer Review #2
Consider adding more to your lead, such as what she was known for or how she contributed to STEM history. You should also bold her name. Overall, though, you present a lot of clear information. The article is organized well, however, most of your subsections only have 1-2 sentences. If possible, you may want to consider adding more information in these sections or combining sections. Your content is neutral and well documented. You may want to expand on how her work impacted her field and the implications of her research.

All in all, you're doing great! Just make sure to keep editing and adding as much information as you can.

Owenpendley (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)