User:Ka4gb/sandbox

Maria Cunitz

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

There wasn't really anything that distracted me but there seems to be a gap of information from 1630-1650.

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I did not see any big neutrality issues in this article. There was one sentence that said,"She was acclaimed as the most learned woman in astronomy since Hypatia of Alexandria." which didn't have a source behind it so it could come off a bit bias.

• Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?

There aren't really multiple viewpoints to look at because it is about one person but more information could be given about her husbands, especially her first husband.

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links that are there work and do seem to support what they are there for but some seem random. For example, there was one source for Hypatia of Alexandria who she was just compared to but I guess the source is there to help people compare Maria to people that came before her. There are also a couple of places that say there is a citation needed so that could be an improvement.

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

There are a couple of sources that are from Wikipedia pages so those seem to be unbiased but some people on the Talk page mention that he used a German Wikipedia page as a source and that's not allowed. A majority of the others are from books written by professionals so those will be reliable sources.

• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Like I said before I would say information could be added about her life between 1630-1650 which would be the part of her life that she was raising her three sons. I also think more information could be given about her husbands, like how they died, for example.

• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Most of the comments have to do with correcting where Maria lived with her family during the Thirty Years' War or her nationality. There are also conversations going on about there being issues with the sourcing.

• How is the article related? Is it part of any WikiProjects?

It says that it is apart of multiple WikiProjects so I guess multiple people have worked on this page as a project.

Academy of Sciences Leopoldina

Leopold I of the Holy Roman Empire

Miscellanea Curiosa (1692)

The Leopoldina was founded in the imperial city of Schweinfurt on 1 January 1652 under the Latin name Academia Naturae Curiosorum, sometimes translated into English as "Academy of the Curious as to Nature." The four founding members were physicians, namely Johann Laurentius Bausch, first president of the society, Johann Michael Fehr, Georg Balthasar Metzger, and Georg Balthasar Wohlfarth. The founders being physicians may have played a role in the research at the Academy being mainly focused on the sciences. As well, the date it was founded means that it was the oldest Academy in Germany.

Continued...(3/20)

Overview: I am planning on working in the History section of the Academy of Sciences Leopoldina page. I am still searching for a source to explain why the source that I have that says the Academy closed at some point and opened up again in 1952. Without knowing why I have not added it to my additions yet. The section on Adolf Hitler is also light so if I can find more information about that I will be adding it.

Additions to the History section:

Paragraph 1?: The archives of Leopoldina are some of the oldest in the world based on the fact that the records date back to the 17th century. These records will provide a window into the German sciences of the last 350 years.

Paragraph 5: While the Jewish students were expelled, the president of the Leopoldina made sure it did not go to the lengths that other universities were taking at the time.

Paragraph 6: The Academy was able to stay independent of the politics happening in Germany which allowed them to be the bridge that connected the two sides of Germany through scientific ideas.

Paragraph 7: According to my source, February 2008 was when the Academy was named the first national science academy in Germany. The Wikipedia article , however, states that it was November 2007 so I will have to find a way to clarify this point.

All of this information comes from this source: Jedlitschka, Karsten (June 20, 2008). "The Archive of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina in Halle (Saale): More than 350 Years of the History of Science". Royal Society. Vol.62, No. 2: 237–244.

Review by K8shep (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

1. 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?
Great job on your additions here. I like that you've already got your sentences written and they look ready to move. Really good source you found!

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?
Is there anything else you could add from the source? Make sure to cite at the end of every sentence you add. For clarifying the date you mentioned, you could say that Karsten J... says that the Academy was named...in February 2008, all while leaving the original date in the article. Also, that 2007 date could be wrong. If your source says it's 2008, then try to find one more that says 2008.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
You're doing great so far! You could add detail about how the Academy stayed independent of the Nazi politics, if that's available.