User talk:Mcavrak/sandbox

Diane Barber peer review

1. The tone was neutral which is good for a Wikipedia page. 2. The research section was split into the scientist's three main focuses which made it easier to read. 3. Information about the personal life of the scientist was provided. 4. I liked seeing the "selected publication" portion, however, I think the page would have a better flow if this was located after the "awards and memberships" section. 5. I liked that there was an awards and memberships section this was something I did not think to add to my report.

Mcavrak peer review by abahado
Note: These questions for the peer review were some of the questions suggested and provided by the Wiki ed peer review module. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, good lead with a nice balance of info and nice flow. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Could add 1 more sentence about the research she does in the lead because this seemed to be a heavier topic in the actual wiki article compared to her biography. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Yes, good organization of topics; biography and career seem a bit similar because there are some mentions of her career in the biography section, but the topics are very clear.

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? The lengths are equal to the importance with the research and what she has discovered being the most important and the biography being the second most important, although some could be added to the biography section.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? There aren't really perspectives in this article because its simple a discussion and biography of a scientist's work and the presentations seems neutral. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article doesn't push some sort of message.

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? As mentioned above, there isn't really a perspective to take, so the author didn't seem to present some sort of perspective.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." A lot of mentions of the "main focus" of the lab Diane Barber works in, so could add references when mentioning these claims.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Not really except mentioning the "main focus" of the labs. Some claims made in the research sections could have references added directly after them instead of at the end of the paragraph.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. Not really, the article was neutral and informative.

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, sources are reliable Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, the writer used a variety of sources. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! As mentioned early, could add references directly after the statements on her research such as their goals and what they have discovered. 165.254.167.114 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC) abahado