User talk:Enlowpat

Hey Paul! Congrats on getting accepted to West Virginia!

Hey Paul. Maryannb1001 (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Enlow Pediatric Psychology Outline
 * 1) Modify article description to align with description from Division 54 of the APA (pediatric psychology)
 * 2) Update “Origin” & “Early Training” sections
 * Change “Early Training” to “Early Influences”
 * Add a “Modern Training” section
 * Improve descriptions contributions by Logan Wright
 * Move to origins section
 * Include contribution from health psychology and biopsychosocial model
 * More holistic views of medicine
 * Helped to create a need for psychological services in medical setting
 * Inclusion of parents in treatments
 * Pediatric Psychologists in the 1960’s and 1970’s

Hey, it's Katie and I'm your student peer editor. My comments are at the end of each question. I didn't find many things that needed to be changed at all, it was a really interesting article. Anything I did add that you disagree with, you obviously know more and I may have just gotten confused since they removed your changes from the actual article. Good Luck! Psyhistorykn (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)psyhistorykn General Specific
 * 1) Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: Lead section and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles. The lead section does give a summary of the article that explains the article in an understandable manner. The length of the summary fits well with the length of the article.
 * 2) Does the contribution appear to be cut and pasted from an existing source without appropriate citation? There are multiple citations and references throughout the article. Many of the terms in the article have links to different pages.  The additions to the article are fully cited.
 * 3) Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind by the author and student-editor? The field-specific jargon is explained through every day examples.  A comparison between a basketball and soccer ball was used to further describe Aristotle’s theory.  Also, work stress and its consequences made specificity problems easier to understand.  Despite field-specific jargon, the article itself is appropriate for the general audience.
 * 4) Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate? There are multiple links to other Wikipedia articles.
 * 5) Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion? There is a neutral and informative point of view. The information comes from verifiable outside sources.
 * 6) Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date, except those that are added to provide historical relevance to the article? Are additional references for further reading provided? The sources are obtained from Journals and Official Handbooks.  The topic of the article seems relatively new research wise which explains why the majority of the sources are recent.  The historical relevance was added in the history section and its subsections.  The one thing I did notice is that the majority of sources, at least before editing, come from the Handbook of Pediatric Psychology.  You did add some in your edit but I would be careful with the Handbook as such a main source.
 * 7) Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language? The structure is logical. It smoothly moves from topic to topic in an obvious and easily understood manner.
 * 8) Are the grammar, verb tenses, and spelling correct? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. (Most of the topics of these articles describe past events, so use past tense consistently throughout. "The plaintiff argued...The defendant responded...The court decided..." NOT The Plaintif argues...The defendant responds...The court decides...") I did not notice problems with grammar, verb tense or spelling.
 * 9) Is the page categorized appropriately? The categorization is appropriate. The sub-sections fit well in their sections.  Relevant lists are placed right beneath the sections they interact with.
 * 10) In general, are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points? Yes, the article’s the important aspects are well explained and the minor points also explained but not over-developed.
 * 11) Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as original articles? Are citations done properly? Although there are no direct links to outside sources, everything is properly cited so finding the articles would seem easy enough. You may want to add a link to some of the references websites, especially the Handbook since it seems so prevalent.
 * 12) Are references formatted properly? Here is one example of how a reference for a law source is formatted: Subsequent references to the same source then just need and see generally Referencing for beginners. The references are formatted correctly.
 * 13) Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page? The banner is there.
 * 1) Cite-check every reference in the article. That means, look at each reference and confirm that it supports the point that the article cites it for. All of the references and citations work together.  I did also check the links to the graduate websites and a few did not work, however that’s not something that you could fix.
 * 2) Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL. There are no bare URLs.
 * 3) Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that need and the need for relevant sources as a comment to the Talk page of the article. Adding information on new or modern contributors may be useful for future readers.  Since it is such a newly developed topic the important people may still be alive.
 * 4) If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add that need and the need for suitable captions for the image as a comment to the Talk page of the article. I don’t think an image is necessary to add.  The only image I could think of adding if you really wanted one was of a historical person named in the article.

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Pediatric Psychology, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)