User talk:CalculatingHorse

Feedback on your article
Hello CalculatingHorse, Thank you for writing your article in your sandbox! I have read the article and would like to give some feedback to improve your article to Wikipedia standards and customs. While your tutor will judge it content wise, I will look if it meets the quality standards we have on Wikipedia. I standard look for a series of subjects that need improvement or are okay. I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before your final version. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Intro: good!
 * Links: okay
 * Headers: You use too many sub-headers: under each header normally are minimal three paragraphs, before can be thought about a sub-header. (Also be aware, while in German nouns are written as capital, this should not in English, unless a name.)
 * References: More references are needed.  Every  paragraph and every two/three sentences should have a reference.
 * Context/timeframe: Animal psychology should not be described as a separate subject, but in relationship to the book.
 * How was the book received:
 * Ready to publish: far from ready... I was hoping by now I could give some feedback, but there is not much yet. In a later stage I can give you some additional feedback.
 * Hi CalculatingHorse, thank you for your message, hereby some further feedback:
 * Intro sentence: missing!
 * Links: missing!
 * Headers: In the content section you should not have so many headers.
 * References: missing!
 * Context/timeframe: missing! Please remove "Historical" from the header as a context is always historical.
 * Reception: good!
 * Other: Please mention in your article also somehow that the book is part of the special collection of the university (with source for it).
 * Thanks! Romaine (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)