User talk:Golanubi

Welcome
Hello, Golanubi and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students. Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, if your class doesn't already have one.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate attribution error
Hi Golanubi and thanks for your improvements to the article. You've found some improved wording and some relevant images. A few questions: Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC) P.S. The lead section and the "overview" section could be made more easy to understand with an example. Imagine readers who haven't found "attribution" being used in this way before, and make it concrete for them. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The first line now says "Ultimate attribution error is a group level attribution error...". Somebody looking this up on Wikipedia might never have read about psychology before, and it might confuse them to see knowledge of the term "attribution error" assumed. It would be less intimidating in the first sentence to put it in simple terms. The previous version of the first sentence called it a "bias": is that wrong? Would "error" be suitable? Just trying to make this accessible to the widest possible audience, because it's a really fascinating topic and the article is a way for many thousands of people to find out about it.
 * 2) On the same theme, be careful to spell out or explain technical terms in the article itself. More wiki-links would be helpful here.
 * 3) You've removed a section on Reducing the error: this seemed okay, or at least based on scholarly references: can you explain why it's gone?
 * 4) You've put a lead image link to Thomas Pettigrew.jpg but there doesn't seem to be a file of that name. I searched commons for a picture of Thomas Pettigrew but couldn't find one.
 * 5) You don't need to have citations in text as well as footnotes, since people can just access the footnotes to get the full citation. I hope it's okay if I make some style changes to the page.
 * Thanks for your quick reply. I'm done messing with the article for now. Glad to hear the section about mitigating the bias is coming back. Continual improvement is what Wikipedia is all about: I genuinely welcome your improvements, but there's always more to be done. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)