User talk:Kaosuna/sandbox

This proposed modified article meets topic requirements in that it this article is about a female scientist which involves gender that is linked to oppression and involves science. By 12/6/18 I want to accomplish the expansion of this article 5-fold as it is presently very underdeveloped and is rated stub-class. I plan to do this in the following ways:

o Expand the lead section as it is only a single sentence

o Include a section in the article for her career as a doctor

o Expand on her space career which has a section but only summarizes her career in paragraph

o Expand on her political career, which also has a section, but it only contains 2 sentences

o Expand on her honors section which currently comprises of one sentence

o Expand or remove/incorporate the section regarding her alleged suicide attempt which only states in 2 sentences that she attempted suicide and speculates at the probable cause

Kaosuna (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Lynsey's Peer Review
1.	First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

I think that the article is full of valuable information and has a vast number of sources to draw from. I liked how her different careers were separated into subsections, which makes the article flow very nicely. The introduction is also very and concise while being so informational as well.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author(s) apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I am unsure how important the “suicide attempt” subsection of the article is. I feel as though it somewhat takes away from all of her accomplishments and isn’t absolutely necessary for the success of the article because it dampens the tone of the article overall. I would also suggest adding all of her “other occupations” that are listed in the introduction into the box to the right under her picture.

3.	What's the most important thing the author(s) could do to improve the article?

Overall the article is very well formatted and has an abundance of information. I believe that organization is going to be key in the success of this article due to how successful this woman is and her diverse background in so many different fields. If the occupations can somehow be formatted by field such as “space, medicine, personal, etc.” then the article will be successful.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I did not find anything directly applicable to my article about Lila Wallis, other than the fact that both articles are about extremely successful women in STEM that have made bounds within their fields and acquired many awards and recognition.

Lnmorton (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Hi Lynsey,

Thank you for reviewing my Wikipedia page that I am working on. I really appreciate your feedback.

From reading my peer review, I agree that the "suicide attempt" subsection isn't absolutely necessary. Initially I was hesitant to take it out because it was there before I began editing the page and I was worried about taking out someone else's contribution. However, I definitely agree that it isn't necessary for the success of the article since it seems to dampen the tone and it only provides a speculation as to why her suicide attempt occurred.

I am also planning on improving the organization of this article by making sections for her other occupations, organizing them by field instead of combining them in one large section. I think this will help make the article more clear and easier to understand and read. I plan on adding separate sections for "medical career", and "personal".

I will also add her "other occupations" that are listed in the introduction into the box on the right under her picture.

I believe these changes will make my work more accurate and complete and I will edit my draft and make the changes outlined above.

Kaosuna (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)