User talk:Chris Blomstrand/sandbox

For Chris: Genetics is certainly relevant to psychology. If there is relevant material, do include it. Same goes for material from Dr. Hilmert's health psych class. I am not familiar with nutrition psychology, but it's got to relate to health psych. J.R. Council (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC) For Amanda: Like I told Chris, this is not an area I know much about. However, I think it's okay to cover it broadly. Basically, if you go broad, don't go deep in any particular area. Keep your article balanced. One thing to keep in mind is that the subtopics will all have Wikipedia articles of their own. You can just write what's necessary about a topic, and then link to the main article. J.R. Council (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC) For Anna: I could not see any contribution from you. If you wrote something somewhere else, you need to move it to Chris's sandbox. J.R. Council (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5
First, a general comment... I can't see where anyone except Amanda has contributed to this assignment. If you all want to get credit, you all need to participate. If you are working off line and then Amanda is entering in work for the whole group, you need to let me know this.

Comments on specific sections: J.R. Council (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) To-do list: Makes sense, but you should be more specific about the tasks required and who will be responsible. This will likely save some frustration later.
 * 2) Outline: First, make a proper outline. What you've got here is a paragraph. If you make a real outline, with headings and subheadings, it will be easier to fill in details. Also, you need to differentiate your outline. Adding details will make writing your lead section easier.
 * 3) References: It's good to see you are formatting the reference section for Wikipedia. As you add text later, be sure to use the drop-down menu to attach reference citations in appropriate places and format references properly.
 * 4) Commitments: You all need to state what you will be responsible for in this piece.

Amanda's comments on Chris's Lead section
Chris- Great job overall on your lead! I think you did well at overviewing the topic of nutrition psychology while being brief but also giving a touch of content without going overboard on the content. A few changes I would make to your lead would be to change the 'too' in the fourth sentence to 'to' instead as it is the correct form and I would take out the "that almost every psychology field deals with is" in the second to last sentence and add 'of' in it's place as I feel it flows better. One other thing that I would change is that you use the word 'many' quite frequently and I would try to either leave it out or replace it with a less vague word. Again I think overall your lead is a great, concise, overview which can stand alone and establishes notability in the first few sentences. Good job! Amarinucci16 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6
Very nice work! However, Chris did not comment on Amanda's lead.
 * I was puzzled comparing your leads because the first sentence Chris's lead is not consistent with Amanda's beginning. Then I read in Amanda's lead that there are two points of view and a controversy over which is correct. Maybe you should begin your lead for Assignment 7 by acknowledging that. Otherwise, I think it will be pretty straightforward to put your two leads together. J.R. Council (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am emailing Anna to ask her to start participating. J.R. Council (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7
Nice job, group! You've got the green light to develop the main article. However, please continue to work on your lead section as well.
 * This is still too wordy. You can make it more concise by cutting out some details that belong in the main aricle. I have put some of this text in italics.
 * Some general editing to eliminate redundancy is needed as well.


 * You could easily cut down the length by 1/4 by doing this, and it would improve the lead. J.R. Council (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8
Hi Group 4 - nice work on this so far! You've made a good start, but I think there's still a lot of material that you can add. Here are some specific suggestions for expanding and improving your article. Follow up comments from Dr. Council: I’m still not happy with this piece, since you did not follow my suggestions to add more material. Also, the last two sentences in Applications are not well-written. However, I am sending the link to Ian to see what he thinks. J.R. Council (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead: "Nutritional psychology is a narrowed spectrum of psychology" doesn't sound right. Better to call it a "subfield" or "sub-specialty."
 * Origins/history: you don't actually say when/how it started. Please give some specific information about the origins of nutritional psychology.
 * Start a new section on Representative research before the Applications section.
 * In the lead, you say: "There are two main areas of controversy...." If you are going to put this in the lead, you need to follow up with details in the text.
 * Applications: I'm sure you can add more details to this section. This is probably the area that most readers will be interested in. Statememts about marketing need to be backed up with reference citations. J.R. Council (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
My main concern is the Applications section, since it doesn't include any sources. I'm also not sure how it would integrate with what's currently in the Applications section of the nutrition psychology article. It seems rather vague. The history and origins section also has some problems - you can't say "starting roughly 20 years ago" without specifying a date. After all, Wikipedia itself has been around for 15 years. A "now" statement from the early days of Wikipedia is a decade and a half in the past.

A couple other things - you say "nutritional psychology" or NP very often - too often, I think. Try "it" a few times. In addition, "including but not limited to" is redundant; "including" conveys the same information in fewer words. I'm also unclear as to how the subject can be applied to the field of genetics, and I can't figure out what source supports that statement. While the lead doesn't have to have citations, it also shouldn't have information that's not in the body of the article (and it should have a supporting citation there). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)