User talk:Osmanbedel

Hello, Osmanbedel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Looks like the article you asked me to review, Literature Circles in EFL, is your first contribution to the project. Thanks for getting involved in Wikipedia and working to make it better. This place can be fun, crazy, frustrating, thrilling, and soul-crushing — occasionally all at the same time!

If you haven't already done so, please read Citing_sources and Verifiability. These are the most important rules of the road that new editors need to be familiar with. There are others, too — Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia is the a good comprehensive list of pages you should keep handy. (It looks like you already have a good grasp of them, but it's good to know the letter of the law when working on Wikipedia.)

I'm afraid I can't offer a full peer review at the moment, but I do have some feedback after a quick look:
 * It's good that you have many citations in your article. (Lots of new editors add info without citations and their articles get deleted. Yours is probably safe, since you've included many citations to — presumably reliable — sources.) However, there are many paragraphs without any citations. If you can't provide citations for these, you should probably remove them. (Some people like to keep what they've written on a "drawing board" or "sandbox" page in the user namespace after they remove it from the article, so that you can access what you've written later, in case you do find a source. For example, I have a drawing board and a sandbox and others. See Userpage for more information.)


 * Because Wikipedia is not an academic journal, providing the last name of a source in the article text is sometimes counterproductive. We want to make the prose of the article itself engaging to the lay reader, who probably has no familiarity with the researcher. I would recommend either (A) adding the researcher's full name, along with a short (2-3 word) description of the person: "Sofia University's Osman Bedel defines Literature Circles in EFL as..." or (B) just give the definition by itself, and readers can access the citation if they want to know where it comes from. ("Literature Circles in EFL are...")


 * Notice that the talk page for English as a foreign or second language lists the WikiProjects that supervise that page. WikiProjects can be a great way to link up with editors working on similar articles, who probably have experience in the particular field you're dealing with here. They probably also have some tips on the standard conventions on naming, terminology, article style, etc.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I've found my work here extremely rewarding and positive. I hope you have a similar experience. Good luck and feel free to ask if you have other questions! (But please don't be offended if I don't have time to give thorough responses.) Scartol  •  Tok  13:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to peer review request
Hi. Sorry not to have logged in for so long. I am responding to your review request posted almost one month ago. I did not read your article, only skimmed it. I am sorry to say that it being written as a scientific research report, it is totally improper for Wikipedia. It goes against Wikipedia's mission and policies, specifically WP:OR. One other editor, "Wilhelmina Will", said tersely "reviewed", yet I find nowhere, not on your user talk page, not at your article, where Wilhelmina wrote a single word about it. Dale Chock (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The article seems to have some good information and be a good idea, but it's main purpose unfortunately is to make a point or propose a new idea. It's more of an essay or research paper than an encyclopedia article. It needs to be thoroughly rewritten to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research policies. Thank you for your efforts, but it will take some more to remain part of Wikipedia. - Taxman Talk 04:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

October 2014
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Literature Circles in EFL. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)