User talk:Pau.kir

Feedback on your article
Hello Pau.kir, Thank you for writing your article in your sandbox! I have read the article and would like to give some feedback to improve your article to Wikipedia standards and customs. While your tutor will judge it content wise, I will look if it meets the quality standards we have on Wikipedia. I standard look for a series of subjects that need improvement or are okay. I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before your final version. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Intro sentence: okay
 * Links: okay, perhaps some more when your article develops.
 * Headers: An article must have three sections: context, contents and reception. Each of the sections being one third of the article. I get the impression you will be creating a too long section for the contents of the book. You also use too many sub-headers: under each header normally are minimal three paragraphs, before can be thought about a sub-header.
 * References: partly missing: Every paragraph and every two/three sentences should have a reference. You can use a reference more than once. Without references an article can't be published.
 * Context/timeframe: For this section the question is what did lead the author to write the book. That has not been described.
 * How was the book received: missing!
 * Other: This is not a good word to use in your article: "Apparently".
 * Ready to publish: I was hoping your article was almost ready, but sadly it is far from ready.
 * Hello Pau.kir, thank you for your message, hereby some further feedback:
 * Links: okay
 * Headers: okay
 * References: more are needed! Except for the Content section, every paragraph needs at the end at least a reference. I think it is also better to add the reference in the header of Content not there, but behind each paragraph of that section.
 * Context: The context should describe what led to the book, not how it was perceived: This sentence should not be there: "is clearly one of his rather unknown works as it is rarely discussed in the literature and cannot be found in various bibliographies" Also this sentence should not be in the article, as that would give Wikipedia a reason to delete (instead focus on what can be found). In the Context section I would like to see, in addition to what you have, some more about other books/publications he wrote before this one.
 * Reception: Please mention in your article somehow that the book is part of the special collection of the university (with source for it of course).
 * Other:
 * Please check for the use of capitals and spelling! Example: "german" should be "German".
 * You like to use words as "hence", "further", etc, please try to avoid these as much as possible.
 * Thanks! Romaine (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)