User talk:Dsmith18/sandbox

Hey! So, first off: you have a lot of good information!! Really, I'm impressed by what you have found on Rapp. However, I have found a few places you could improve your article on. First, I would suggest moving the general information about Rapp (like her name, field, where she works at an such) before the box. This is more of an aesthetic thing, but that completely influences the flow of the article. I would also suggest using only a list of selected works that are most relevant to the field of Anthropology, and not necessarily to her; or you could also create a separate page with all publications, a "Complete Bibliography", and just link it to this one. As for the "Personal Life" section, I am always reticent about it when it comes to pages on women. Nonetheless, if the information is relevant and pertinent, then might I suggest an "Early Life and Education" section? A "Background and Career" also sounds good. I guess it all depends on the type of information. Finally, there are to citation issues in the last section. There are no examples of conferences she has spoken at in Europe (the citation for that leads to he NYU page which is a bot vague and might fall into self publication). There is also non citation for her influence over non-invasive prenatal diagnosis tests. Overall, this is a very strong draft! I have not read any bias into your writing and all sections seem well balanced. I can't wait to read the completed article! Mdladams (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

Thank you so much, this is extremely helpful! That was my concern as well - I don't want her to be reduced to her biography and marriage/familial status, as so often is the case with females, but especially in "Testing Women, Testing the Fetus", her personal life heavily influences her research, so I wanted to make sure that comes through in my description. I definitely like the idea of an "Early Life and Education" Section, as I think that would be relevant, but I think "Background and Career" might be more inclusive, so that's something I'll have to play around with. Thank you! Dsmith18 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)dsmith18

Peer Review

Dana! I love how much you added to this article! I especially applaud you for having different sections. I often feel that if there is one or two huge paragraphs, readers usually just skim or feel less interested in reading the material. Therefore, great job! I do believe that you should try adding an image to your article. Usually articles that are based on individuals have images of the individual or of their work (books, art, etc.) Additionally, I feel that in your Career and Education section you should be more clear when stating her educational background. I was a bit confused when you stated the years that she received her MA and BA. Did she also complete those at University of Michigan? Just a thought! One thing that comes to mind is possibly adding a little bit more about her personal life (not too much but just enough)! For example, where she's from, when she was born, possible influencers in her life etc. If I find any good information that you can add or possible sources that can make your article stronger, I will place them under this paragraph. Let me know if you have any questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londralondris (talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

Thank you! Yes, biographical information has been difficult to find for her because she's still living, but I've found a few sources that at least list her birth year. I love the idea of "influences" and think that could even be a great section header if I can find enough information! Thanks again Dsmith18 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)dsmith18

Peer Review

This looks awesome, and it is such an improvement from the original article! And you have done a great job keeping it neutral. To answer some of your questions - though I'm obviously not an authority here - I think it is a good idea to have a completed bibliography of Rapp's work. If that is what you currently have at the end of the article, I think it looks fine as it is. Maybe you can include a section elsewhere of a discussion of her most prominent works more in-depth. This would help to really outline her major arguments. Also, I think it makes more sense to separate the "Career" and "Personal Life" sections. Even if the section about Rapp's personal life isn't huge, I wouldn't say that it belongs alongside information about her career. Another suggestion I would make is to add an infobox to just briefly summarize Rapp's education and career. The title for the "References" section appears to be missing. I didn't notice any grammatical mistakes. I hope this review is helpful in writing the rest of your article. Like I said, it looks really great so far! Mpraml (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

This is extremely helpful, thank you! The complete bibliography has definitely been a challenge - she lists all of her publications in her CV, but that's technically not a valid source, so trying to verify all 80+ articles might be too much to undertake, but I'm going to do my best. I really like what you said about her more influential works - some of her articles with Faye Ginsburg, "Testing Women...", and "Conceiving the New World Order" would definitely belong there. And yes, that's what Alondra mentioned to, so I will definitely add an info box! Thank you so much! Dsmith18 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)dsmith18