User talk:Heidi.Rued/sandbox

For Heidi: Regarding using websites, as long as you are also using published sources, web sites are okay. Just don't over-rely on that material. Regarding her research, you should definitely summarize her main research contributions, backed up with reference citations. Overall, try to keep the discussion balanced - no need for fine detail about research. J.R. Council (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC) For Casey: Obituaries and articles on awards are good sources of biographical information. I agree, you won't have any problem putting together a good article - there's a lot of good stuff available, and you won't have to dig too hard to find it. J.R. Council (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC) For Sydney: You should cover both her work and her life. Keep it balanced. There is a section in the brocure, Editing Wikipedia articles on psychology, on how to organize an article on a psychologist. I'll be covering how to divide up tasks when I discuss Assignment 5 in class. J.R. Council (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5
First, a couple of general comments: It's good to see how you guys are getting into this assignment. You are already generating a lot of good ideas/material. Maybe I should have been more clear, but my intent with this assigment was to have all of you working on the same to-do list, outline, and references. Regarding formatting, notice the grayed-out boxes in Sydney's piece -- that's what happens if you leave a blank space at the beginning of a line. (I've changed the first instance.) This is a good time to start practicing proper Wikipedia formatting. Specific comments:
 * 1) To-do list: Consolidate the separate lists. Be as specific as you can about the tasks required and who will be responsible. This will likely save some frustration later.
 * 2) Outline: Again, consolidate the three separate outlines into one master outline. You need to differentiate your outline. Adding details will make writing your lead section easier.
 * 3) References: Again, consolidate. Right now the reference section is not formatted 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. J.R. Council (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6
Nice work, group - both on leads and critiques. I like how you've used the formal criteria for your critiquest. With a little effort, this will come together into a nice combined lead for Assignment 7. A few specific suggestions: J.R. Council (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Heidi's lead section is thorough and detailed, but actually too long and detailed for a lead. Focus on what makes Denmark notable and just mention the other things. You can go into detail in the main article.
 * 2) Sydney's lead is good, but you should not use superlatives like "one of the strongest female presences in the field of psychology." Remember to take a neutral point of view. Some other statements in this lead also seem positively biased.
 * 3) Casey also overdoes the superlatives in the first sentence. Also, don't use her first name after the first sentence - Denmark, not Florence. My comments to Heidi about too much detail also apply here.

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. Here are some suggestions:
 * 1) Please tone down the superlatives. It makes the article look biased. Stick to her actual accomplishments instead of general comments about how important she is.
 * 2) This is still too wordy. You can make it more concise by cutting out text that applies to my first comment, as well as by general editing to eliminate redundancy.
 * You should cut down the length by 1/4 to 1/3. J.R. Council (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8
Hi Group 3. Nice job! You'll be ready for publication soon. Here are my suggestions for getting this article up to speed: When you do these things, I will notify Ian at Wiki Ed for final vetting before publication to main article space. J.R. Council (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lead: Start with a more specific statement of her accomplishments. What did she do to get all those awards? The whole first paragraph is pretty vague and general. Work on improving writing style. E.g., "became involved in several organizational pursuits" is clumsy and general. Better - "played prominent roles in several professional organizations." Section needs references and links.
 * Professional life: Much better. Add reference citations and links.
 * Working Towards Gender Equality: Better title - Involvement in women's issues. Again, add references and links.
 * I would like to see more specific details about her research and scholarly work.
 * Proofread carefully for typos, grammar, spelling, etc.

Dr. Council,

Each member of our group read through our own sections and each others to make sure there are no grammatical or spelling errors. We also added more citations to our lead section and each of our individuals sections as well. We tried to make the lead section more detailed and cover her main accomplishments more directly. We feel it flows well and is ready to be published.

Kaseyclynn (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good! I've emailed Ian. Sorry about not getting to this earlier. J.R. Council (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Looks good. I made some copyedits/stylistic edits in keeping with the Wikipedia style manual.

When you merge this into the Florence Denmark you might want to add some information to the infobox in the top right corner of the article. I would also recommend that you retain the exiting "(born January 28, 1932)" in the first line of the lead, since it's pretty standard for the way biographies are formatted on Wikipedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)