User talk:Jdong15/sandbox

Response to Leo Kanner Article

The article did a great job of detailing Kanner's contributions to the advancement of the field of psychiatry and as well as his revolutionary approach to mental illness which ultimately led to his diagnosis of autism. You guys also did a good job of providing an in-depth overview of Kanner's approach to studying children victimized by mental illness and the pertinent issues these children face due to society's lack of understanding of mental illnesses like autism at the time. However, I feel like the article could be further improved by providing a bit more information regarding Kanner's role as the founder of the children's psychiatric department at the pediatric hospital of Johns Hopkins Hospital. This could be done by detailing a few points on Kanner's impact and influence on the children's psychiatric department and/or any new approaches or methods of study that he pioneered to better treat mental illnesses at the hospital. Moreover, the portion of the article on Leo Kanner's legacy could be enhanced by describing his legacy in relation to both the Johns Hopkins Hospital and his role as the pioneer of the Johns Hopkins's first children's psychiatric department. Overall, your article does a good job of being informative while maintaining an encyclopedic tone. Other than a slight lack of information regarding Kanner's role in relation to the Johns Hopkins Hospital and its newly-introduced children's psychiatric department, this article does a great job of addressing the various aspects of Kanner's background, career, and scientific accomplishments with appropriate emphasis. Lastly, I feel like this article could be further strengthened by including images and/or visuals (along with their respective sources) that illustrate things such as the children's psychiatric department at the time or Kanner himself while consulting with children afflicted by mental illness. I'm not sure if such images/visuals and their respective sources are available, but if they are I believe they would only improve your article. --Aditya P (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)--Aditya P (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)--Aditya P (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Aditya P.

Dear Jdong15/23penguin,

I felt this article did a good job of describing Leo's life in detail, as well as his contributions towards establishing autism to be formally recognized as a pediatric condition. Similarly to Aditya's comment, I would have liked to hear more about his life while at Hopkins. As a work in progress, I think you did a great job so far.

Some areas for improvement as you shape this up to a full article are as follows: How exactly was he honored in the obituaries, or what in particular makes them noteworthy? Have you tried the looking into the Hopkins archives for more references? Introductory Paragraph - Minor grammatical errors, you could also mention how he is part of the first pediatric department at JHU hospital. Legacy - You could possibly quote developments in the field of child psychology that built off of Leo's work.

Wlee74 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

review- Leo Kanner

I think the article so far does a very good job explaining his research, but lacks in other areas of his life. The contents section does a good job of dividing up the content. In terms of additions, I think it is good that in your sources you have included the link to his contribution at Hopkins because that is definitely lacking in this article. It does well in initial discoveries but his later research is lacking. There is a lot having to do with the specific observations in his studies, but not much on the overall studies or multiple studies. That section could also be broken up a little more too, as it looks kind of like one big block now. I am sure his later research projects at Hopkins also contributed to the field of psychiatry. Perhaps that could be a place for improvement. In the last paragraph of Studies of Autism, it mentions the impact the studies had, maybe look further into that? More into Legacy? Other than that, the article does have a good structure and set up, I believe, and cites information well. Pictures could be included to illustrate the article, although I would say these are not as important as the content. The intro paragraph is good, it gives a good overview of Kanner and what will be discussed in the article.

Overall, though, I think the article is good so far just has some small areas where it could be strengthened. The structure is good as is the content. Aclg13 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)