 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Feedback edit
Do you think any of Dr. Kraemer's works should be mentioned in the article? Below is my evaluation of the article, I am curious to hear thoughts or feedback, thanks.
The lead section is concise and gives a clear outline of what is discussed in the article. As far as content, I would be more interested in Dr. Kraemer's works in pharmacognosy, although the given content is relevant and up-to-date. Tone and balance are not biased in any fashion, and make Dr. Kraemer sound like an interesting individual. The references and external links work, are up-to-date, and reflect reliable and accurate information pertaining to the article. The article is organized well and has little-to-no grammatical errors. As far as images and media, there is a lack of pictures (minus the one of Dr. Kraemer). If more of Dr. Kraemer's research would have been included in the article, I would like to see pictures of the physical and chemical properties of what Dr. Kraemer was studying. As far as the talk page, there were no discussions or conversations present on the talk page. Overall, as a summary biography, the article is well-developed. To go above and beyond, the author of the article should gather more resources about Dr. Kraemer's work and why it's important to modern pharmacognosy.
FireWhirls (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)