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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
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 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
I think this article does a good job of following the wikipedia style writing. It gives information about Amparo Acker-Palmer very concisely and with easy to understand efficient language. There are some improvements that can be made to make this article even more concise and clear. For example you have a scentece that start with "After graduating, she later received a Postdoctoral Fellowship." This I think can be changed to something like "After graduating, she completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship." Keeping this kind of efficiency in mind as you keep refining this article will make it very useful.
The organization also is very logical, although if I were you I would separate education and career as two different sections. I would also encourage you to increase the amount of information in the info box at the top right of the page so that people get get the information they need quickly. I would also encourage you to add a picture of Amparo Acker-Palmer although I understand this can be challenging due to rights.
To get a better idea of how you can better your article, and what is important to talk about on a page about a women scientist I would suggest you visit pages such as the one for Jennifer Doudna who has a very strong page. This can show you what is appropriate to have as sections in your article, what should go into each section, as well as how to fill out your information box.Humanpersonfromhere2 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the article reads clearly and is organized similarly to other scientist Wikipedia pages. The language is logical, efficient, and concise. Combining education and career makes sense, however the paragraph style may be overwhelming the information. If there were breaks between grouped time points then it would read easier and be more readily accessed if the reader was looking for a specific point in her life. I see no major revision requirements, but several minor areas that can be altered. For example, the sentence "At Goethe University she was then nominated as Professor of Cluster of Excellence "Macromolecular Complexes" in 2007" could be revised by removing the "then" . The citing is mildly confusing for the research section. For the sentence "However, the validity of the study's data was placed under scrutiny by Nature's readers due to its questionable figures," there should be a citation for the scrutiny. The next cite is for the article [9] and the end of the three descriptions has a new cite [10]. It may help clarify the source of the information if the sentence mentioned before contains a cite for where the scrutiny came from either [9] or [10]. Aside from the small adjustments this article was prepared well and executed to the level that Wikipedia intends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboombox (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
