Talk:Sharon Hammes-Schiffer

Untitled

Peer Review #1: Hi! Overall I think that you did a fantastic job on expanding this article because I agree that one of the most important sections for scientific people pages on Wiki is their research. You did a great job on elaborating on why she is important for the realm of science. I just have a few suggestions on the article. There were a few sentences that were contained in quotation marks. For those, if they were direct word-for-word references from the source you cited, I think it may be considered as plagiarism. Even if it's not, I think it would be a better idea if you could still paraphrase them as best as you possibly can. The concept in quotes could probably be simplified for the reader as most scholarly articles typically assume the readers know more about the subject at hand, in comparison to the knowledge of the average wiki reader. But that's just a suggestion! Also, for some of her research, I think you could speak a bit more about the field that it is in. For example, when you talked about how some of her work has been done regarding PCET, it was a bit unclear as to how exactly impactful her research was. It was great how you referenced that in the scientific community, it highly regarded as amazing research but it would be good if you also mentioned more on what PCET is. Although this article isn't on PCET, I think it would be good to explain a bit more about it, so the readers can see why her research is pertinent to that field. And maybe also do a bit more background for the other fields she did research in but overall, I think it was more clear as to how her research was impactful for enzymatic processes and NEO. Overall, you did a great job! It was all incredibly clear and the introduction was great as it really showed what she is so important for. I hope my comments are helpful! Tiffanyhu (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 : Hey. The article is very sound and the chunk of text added in the research section was very beneficial for readers in my mind. The layout of the sections were in a good format. The summary in the beginning did a good job touching on all points in the article covering the different sections at different lengths depending on importance. However, I might add a small sentence about early life and education. Furthermore, in the early life and education section, I would like to see a little more information in this. Maybe small fun facts if its known can be added about her time in college such as if she was part of band or maybe some extracurricular activities she could have been involved in. Also if there were any awards worth noting for her undergraduate and graduate career that would be nice to add. She seems like a real go getter so I am sure you can find some information on this. I would also like to see what her Ph.D was on. In the research section there was a sentence where you stated "as described in her paper..." I think this can be omitted and just state the sentence with the link to her paper. Furthermore, in this section in the second to last paragraph, you stated Dr. Hammes-schiffer thought her methods were "significantly advantageous" to other methods. I think this was a good way to go around the neutrality rule of wikipedia but it still might not be considered neutral in the eyes of wikipedia. I think you should steer clear of any other statements like this to avoid non-neutrality. Piggy backing off of what tiffany hu said, I do think the use of quotations are on the boarder of being labeled plagiarism as according to wikipedia. I would delete the quotations and work on understanding the sentences and putting them in your own words.

Overall, you did a great job making the article clear, neutral and organized. I hope my comments helped somewhat. Kbelardo (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the article on Sharon Hammes-Schiffer is significantly lacking in her research findings. I propose the addition of a research section, under which her findings will be presented in chronological order. These findings will be in paragraph format and will build on eachother if papers were influenced by one or more previous papers. The importance of the findings will be discussed as well within the section and will link to any and all related wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia is not necessarily the appropriate place to describe a person's research in any detail. It's just an overview. Follow WP:SECONDARY (cite reviews mainly) and of course WP:COI. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The research will not be described in detail. General findings will be reported and reviews supporting the application of her findings are planned to be added. Itsimchi (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itsimchi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)