Talk:David G. Robinson (data scientist)

[Untitled]

For David Robinson Article Peer Edit: First, what does the article do well? 1. Very concise and to the point, and great usage of citations throughout the page. An informative article that gives readers a clear idea of Robinson's work and career.

Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? 2. Overall, structurally well-written and information is given. The references list is clean and clear. Great introduction/summary at the beginning.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? 3. I would suggest, apart from my edits, to expand on the topic if you can maybe include other bodies of work or other parts of his career. Also, maybe try and structure the publications as a bulleted list, a little too cluttered. Add on to his career or expand on what makes his work/publications different, maybe add on interview quotes from online.

What’s the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? 4. Fix the structure and clean, also add more information where needed, but overall still a great draft.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know 5. I liked your introduction I thought it was well-written and concise. Also, great job giving external links to other Wikipedia pages.

Peer Review - David G Robinson

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I thought the article did a great job of splitting up the different parts of his life (Career, Publications, Education, etc). I also liked how you mentioned how he was able to use his data science skills in the fight against cancer. I also think there are a wide variety of sources.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The articles listed in the "Publications" section could be converted to a bullet-point list, rather than a long sentence. I think this would make it much easier to identify each individual article. Right now that section is somewhat hard to read.

3. What’s the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I believe the content in the article is good. Now the most important thing would be to improve the clarity of each section and to alter the format to make it easier to read.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I like how you included a link to each individual article he has written. This will make it easier to find more information, for anyone looking to follow up.Mikey232323 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for this new article. Note that it is currently an "Orphan" meaning that no other Wikipedia articles link TO it. This makes it tough to find for interested readers. See WP:DE-ORPHAN for pointers..

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)