User talk:Karkeraa/sandbox

The author of this Wikipedia post has provided a strong overview of the American Microscopical Society (AMS). The article begins by describing what exactly the AMS is. The author goes on to explain the history and publications of the group. The publications section goes into detail regarding symposiums, funding, and scholarships/fellowships for students. Overall, the article seems to provide a lot of information that is not currently accessible through Wikipedia.

The tone of this article is consistent throughout and seems appropriate for the Wikipedia audience. The organization from Intro to History to Publications is logical and characteristic of other Wikipedia articles. I am not sure if ‘Symposiums and Meetings’ and ‘Funding and Fellowships’ should be under publications or if they should be their own major headings – just something to consider. Overall, I think the author did a good job extracting a lot of valuable information about the American Microscopical Society. My strongest major editing points are in relation to homogeneity of references as well as structuring of paragraphs. It is valuable that so much information was able to be included in this article but it may be problematic that all sources are stemming from the American Microscopical Society itself. Normally, this would probably be okay, but in the case of Wikipedia, other editors may prefer to see other articles referencing this group. Secondly, there were multiple instances were it seemed as if sentences should be combined to form a paragraph. For example, the first two sentences of the Early Leadership section are a bit awkward standing on their own. I would probably either bullet from the very beginning of that section of simply switch the formatting to avoid large spaces between these sentences. Throughout the rest of the article I think it may be worthwhile to see where formatting like this should also be addressed. Splitting things into paragraphs can add value and provide new levels of understanding for readers!

This article is well written and organized from a grammatical standpoint as well. The final sentence in the introduction feels a bit long for Wikipedia. Maybe have one sentence for yearly meetings, one for workshops? When discussing the Spencer-Tolles Memorial Fund, the author mentions that it continues to promote publications. I think it should be specified that it continues to promote publications today or currently or something that describes time. In Publications, italicizing of journals is good, but be sure that parentheses following are not italicized. The first sentence of Student Awards doesn’t make perfect sense – I’m a little confused. Under Photomicrography Contest I would either reference why you are numbering (i.e. There are two criteria…) or simply bullet. In the second sentence of Student Research Funding you can omit the words ‘from each other’ as they are repetitive following ‘separately.’ In AMS Student Travel Awards section, is the meeting always January 3-7 or just the year in reference? If the latter, maybe say early January?

Overall the author did a great job incorporating a lot of information into this article! As an editor, I also learned a lot about a group I was not familiar with. ☺

EKeller (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)