Draft talk:Trevor David Rhone

Peer Review

The first think I saw when I looked was the format with section heads and that is good. I felt like you had a good flow and built a good time line about his life. The one thing I would like to see more off is the Awards sections, I know this is properly hard but I feel like it is very short and can use expanding. After that I think your draft is really well done and in my opinion almost done. Devin Stangle (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi everyone,

I'm Jennifer and I completed my peer review. Overall, your team did a phenomenal job. I look forward to seeing the completed version. JenniGump (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

Greetings,

I have completed my peer review of your article. Great job on what you have so far, looking forward to the finished product. GrgNd (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi,

I've finished my Peer review for this article. It looks great, and I can't wait to see the end result.

You can read the Peer Review Here: User:DerekE9831/Trevor David Rhone/MachInX19 Peer Review

MachInX19 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate article

My apologies to @MachInX19, @DerekE9831, @GrgNd, @JenniGump but you do not appear to have carefully read the criteria for academics to be notable, WP:NPROF; the article is well-constructed but he does not qualify as notable. It is very rare for assistant professors to pass the bar. He has certainly made a good start to his career, however, with an h-factor of 11 and 24 publications in an area where typical notable academics have h-factors of more than 50 and hundreds of publication he has a long way to go, it is WP:TOOSOON. I am going to draftify this so you can analyze, I feel this is gentler than the alternative of nominating for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)