Talk:Jo McDonald

Learn more about this page

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.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Jo McDonald is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Archaeology: Women in archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women in archaeology task force.

Women scientists

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Britt's peer review

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I like that your lead is brief and informative. Personally, I would replace the word 'important' with one that is more neutral. Maybe something like, 'McDonald is known/recognized for her contributions to research concerning Australian rock art'.

I would be interested to know what exactly McDonald does at the University of Western Australia. I assume she is teaching there, but it wouldn't hurt to clarify that in your article.

It looks like y'all are going to expand on specific examples of McDonald's work on Australian rock art, which is great because it will help to illustrate her contributions to the field beyond superficial generalizations.

Overall, I've no doubt that the framework you've chosen will be very effective once you've more information filled in. Again, I think it would be totally cool to keep the article short and sweet, as long as you're able to give examples/share specific details to support broader statements.

Brittle89 (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Angela's Peer Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lead is very simple and to the point. The second part of the lead is phrased very strangely. The reader is supposed to be told that Australian rock art is what her focus is and that it's what she has contributed most to, not that she is "important" to the research. Mentioning the rock art is an important topic about McDonald, so it is a good contribution to the article.

The information given is in chronological order and in terms of the content of it, it flows well.

The article is fairly neutral. I would remove the phrase "especially important" when discussing her research topic. There is not much information about what she specifically did with the rock art and it does not specify her PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjejordan (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic