Talk:Camilla Stivers

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details are available on the course page.

ekh 02:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review:

Content

The lead section is evident, the overview is useful however should include a formatting that is similar to the most bibliographies which include a concise overview of the profession the individual, the date of birth and significance, the information provide doesn't give a date of birth of death(if necessary. The key points/sub-points are some what unclear The contribution need more information about her personal life howeever this is only a draft so its a respectable amount of information The points that are presented in this text are well supported Thesis and analytic focus The focus of the topic is clear The information seems appropriate to the case Representativeness

The contribution could use more perspective on other scholars views on her and her work

The tone is appropriate however for the information given Sourcing details Claims aren't cited with references and doesn't really have many sources Neutrality The article has some non-neutral tones without supporting citations. No, The article sometimes states opinions as facts Yes The Coverage is very balanced just could use more elements and content to the paper Readability A. The paper is very well written Sentences are carefully crafted to be grammatically correct Yes Yes Yes B. Yes Yes Yes C. No D. No there should be pictures however \ Open Ended Questions Question One The topic its self seems interesting and she seems like an important scholar in academia Question Two More Content Pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.251.150 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]