Talk:Andrew Conway Ivy
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
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): Jshamul, Jpunnoo1. Peer reviewers: Achara1, Gaukulius.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Great job editing the article on Andrew Conway Ivy, I liked how you described his education and professional career in detail. It was a very informative read. One thing I would suggest is to break down the huge paragraph on the educational career section and maybe shorten some of the sentences so that it is more readable. --Gaukulius (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
editThis article seems very well researched. I think there are some areas where this article can be improved. First, the educational career of Andrew Ivy pre-WWII is not elaborated. Ivy was already a famous physician by the time of the Nuremberg Trial, and information on this time period would have developed the article's depth more. Second, the article would have been easier to read if some key terms were linked to formerly existing Wikipedia articles. Lastly, there are some formatting and grammatical issues that can be improved. Andrew Conway Ivy is referred to as Ivy and Dr. Ivy throughout the article and I believe this lowers the consistency of the flow. Also, sentences such as "Ivy could not carry the lie of the efficacy of his drug forever though." seems bit too informal for a wikipedia article. However overall, I think the article is very well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.160.159 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice! I will certainly try go into more detail for the time period. Also, I think that organization suggestion is a good idea! Thank you!Jshamul (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
editReally nice job! I liked how detailed you were, especially for the educational career section. This article was very well written and the material was presented in a cohesive manner. However, I think the information in educational career section could be broken down into different paragraphs or other sections. Also there were some sentences that seemed too long a bit confusing. Achara1 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)