User talk:Nahlabear/sandbox

What I want to accomplish by 12/6:
 * I hope to fully restructure Cynthia's article by the end of the quarter. Lauren and I aim to create a detailed exposition of her accomplishments and the impact that she has made on society. The current article fails to mention her invention of the kids coding language, so we will be working on the development of a section about that.

goals / status

Jimi Feldman's Peer Review of Nahlabear: Cynthia Solomon
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 thought that breaking up what was already in the article into sections was a very smart move - being that almost 100% of the original article is the lead. I also liked there there is heavy emphasis on Logo in your updated version.

2. What changes would you suggest the author(s) apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -Although I believe the "LOGO" section has great potential to be strong, I think there should be a quick reminder as to what the language of Logo is, since I already forgot once I got down to that section! Additionally, it might be helpful to readers if logo is consistent in the way that it's written; Is it LOGO or Logo? I also think the article might benefit from including the "LOGO" section as a new subsection for the "Contributions to Children's Education" section. Along with that, I think it would be great to include other subsections under Contributions for every big project that she does. I also think it would be great if you could significantly expand the "Writings" section. And finally, your article could really use some references! I know that it can be difficult to find good sources, but for my page, my partner and I have been using our scientist's peer reviewed articles and such to pull information of his accomplishments.

3. What's the most important thing the author(s) could do to improve the article? -While it is important to have Solomon's writing works on her page, I believe that it would be helpful to readers if the writings were summarized in your article. Formal writings can often be intimidating, and Wikipedia is a great place to reiterate important information in a way that is understandable to as many people as possible. This will continue to contribute to her impressive amounts of knowledge.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! -I really like the "Contributions to Children's Education" section. I think it can be useful to point out the impressive contributions of a person so that people can learn of their accomplishments and potentially apply it to their own future learning. Additionally, I like that your article has so many links to other Wikipedia articles, we really should utilize that more often! Additionally, the person we are writing on also has a lot of peer reviewed papers, so it would be a useful section to have. Great job, keep up the good work! Jrfeldma (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)