User talk:E.hathaway/sandbox

Reference Citations
See WP:CQR and the brochure Editing Wikipedia that I handed out in class for instructions. If you are editing in the sandbox using the visual editor, there is a drop down textbox that makes citations easy. J.R. Council (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Assignment 4
For Zhaojun
 * You should not have to purchase an article. If you can't get something from NDSU Interlibrary Loan, let me know and I will request it for you.
 * Yes - if you mention one of Downey's contributions, cite a book or article that goes with it. Books and articles can also be listed separately in a bibliography or selected works section.

For Emily:
 * You don't need to list an ISBN in a reference listing. It's nice, but not essential.
 * You should be able to indicate the gist of an article or book in a couple or three sentences. If an article has an abstract, that's a good lead. Otherwise, the conclusions section should emphasize the main points.

For Miranda:
 * Remember, this is an encyclopedia. You don't need to go into depth on any particular topic. If someone wants more information, they can just look up the source. (That's why it's important to cite your sources and have accurate reference information.)

J.R. Council (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Great start!
Hi Group 10 -- I think you've made a very nice start. I'm impressed that you have done a real outline. (I was wondering whether this was even taught anymore.) You have come up with some good material. In particular, ''Hogan, John D. (2003). "June Etta Downey: Pioneer of personality measurement". Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology 5: 14.'' Be sure to read Hogan's article - it will give you a lot of details, I'm sure. J.R. Council (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback
Miranda: I think your lead section flowed really well and I liked how you linked her professional work with her accomplishments. I feel like we need to add some of the more exciting stuff though, like just calling her a professor sounds a little boring. But overall I thought it was good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.hathaway (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Emily: I thought your lead section went together very nicely and I thought the inclusion of the Individual Will Temperament test was very good and hits an important topic of her research on personality. I do think that her being the first to study personality is important, but I think we should mention that after some of the other facts because it is more vague and too specific about who she is initially. I think that I would like to know more of her specific accomplishments right away. Other then that I think you hit a lot of stuff that is notable about her and I think reading into her a little more we can find more prominent accomplishments. MHusnick (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Zhaojun: I was very impressed with your lead section bar any grammatical ans spelling errors and I think that it would be probably the best choice to build the rest of the article on.MHusnick (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Miranda: I think your lead section is very good. It started from Downey's essay to her interests in career, which I think is very new and good. Emily: I think your lead section is very good. You mentioned one of Downey's contributions and that can leave readers good impression and make them want to know more. Zhaojun.fu (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Assignment 6

 * Note: I didn't see any comments on Zhaojun's lead. J.R. Council (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For Emily: Nice job, but some changes needed. Identify her as a psychologist. "Chaired" would be a better word than "ran" [the department]. Overall, needs to be written more formally and with more detail.

For Miranda: Nice job, but some changes needed. First sentence should say something more exciting than that she received degrees.

For Zhaojun: Also very good, but needs proofreading - e.g., grammatical errors, "American psychologist on handwriting and personality," Titchener spelled wrong. About the right amount of detail in general, but mention of James and Watson is too much detail for the lead.

For all: Bold her name the first time. See Manual of Style/Biographies for how to write a biography. For the lead, it says:


 * Name(s) and title(s), if any
 * Dates of birth and death, if known (but for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence); for how to write these dates, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of birth and death;
 * Context (location or nationality);
 * In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
 * Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
 * The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played;
 * Why the person is notable.

I think Zhaojun's lead needs work, but it would be a good starting point for Assignment 7. J.R. Council (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Assignment 7
Hi Group 10. This is just some quick feedback to get you going on Assignment 8. I will be getting back on Sunday with more detailed comments. 1. This article is coming along very nicely. Great job! It will not be hard to get this ready to move to the main article space. 2. Proofread the whole article. Some sentences have minor grammatical errors. Also, you need to edit out various comments from group members. 3. My main suggestion right now is to get the article properly organized. See the Editing Wikipedia articles on Psychology pamphlet, page 2, on how to organize an article about a psychologist. If you work on these things, you'll have plenty to do before I get back Sunday evening. J.R. Council (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Followup: Here are some further comments and suggestions: In general, all of my comments above still apply. Lead: The only bold text should be her name in the first sentence. Legacy: Comments above apply. Add ref citation for Downey Individual Will-Temperament Test. Published Works: I would split this section into Major contributions, describing her work in text, and Major publications, which would just be a list. Put these sections before Legacy. J.R. Council (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Change Society of Experimentalists to Society of Experimental Psychologists.
 * Probably her undergrad degree was in classics.

Assignment 8 decision
Hello Group 10. Some of this article is very good, but there is a lot of cleanup needed that makes it inappropriate to move to Wikipedia main article space at this time.
 * There is enough good material that I am sending it on to Ian for his comments and recommendation. However you need to continue working on this.
 * 1) Proofread and clean up! There are grammatical errors and typos, as well as comments among your group that don't belong in the article. All this needs to be taken care of before publishing.
 * 2) Some of this is written very informally. Make sure the tone is "encyclopedic."
 * 3) Delete the section 'On Social Media.' It doesn't make sense and is redundant with earlier material. J.R. Council (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Feedback
Very nice work. Just a few things you could improve You might also want to make sure that your layout is in keeping with the Wikipedia style manual - generally speaking, we only bold the first mention of the name of the article, and we normally don't capitalize section headers beyond the first word (unless they are proper nouns). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the major contributions section, you use the phrase "did a lot of research"; this is a bit too informal for an encyclopaedia article.
 * The major publications section doesn't appear to have clear criteria for what constitutes a 'major publication'. It seems a bit random. If you include a section like this, please ensure that there are clear criteria - after all, the next person who comes along and tries to improve the article won't necessarily know what you had in mind.

Ready to publish - just needs an easy fix
This looks good, and you have my thumbs-up to publish once you fix the references. 3, 4, 6 and 16 are empty in your reference list. The first time you cite a source, you need to put in complete reference information. For example, for 3, you just have "She was the first woman to be named the chair of a University department. " in the text. (Go into edit mode here to see what I mean.) Just fix this up and you're good to go. Please see the instructions on Blackboard following Assignment 9 on how move the article over to main space. Congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)