User talk:Sefran2/sandbox

Feedback On Lead Sections
Hey Savannah! Your lead section looked good! Some things that I noticed were: Overall good job! :) Isley Pie6 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That Beverly Greene's name isn't bolded. We are supposed to bold the topic of our page.
 * Before getting into her background in the first few sentences, maybe briefly talk about who and what she does first then go into the background. You did a great job of this at the end of your first paragraph, so I would maybe switch that last sentence to the first!
 * You did a great job getting to the point of who Greene is and some of the things that she has done while also including some background information on her!

Feedback On Lead Sections
Hi! Thank you so much for my feedback. Sorry for the late response I just got off work. As I was reading through yours i felt it was very well organized and written. I also think that it had a lot of information that was needed to explain what Beverly Greene has accomplished and what she does. I have no corrections for you in all honestly. sefran2 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I moved everything over. We will read the directions in the future more carefully!! Isley Pie6 (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dr.Council! Just so you are aware, we worked together in a word document on google docs again. Thank you. sefran2 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice start, but the article needs some work still
 * Your tone isn't quite right for an encyclopedia article. Focus on things that are externally verifiable. For example

If you say that she studies the relationship between psychological resilience and vulnerability, you have a simple statement of fact. "Striving" is aspirational, and while you can report on how someone describes their aspirations, it isn't really appropriate here. Similarly you should avoid things like
 * "In order to understand the human identity"
 * "has made it a point to make sure"
 * "has made incredible contributions"


 * Avoid redundancies, and avoid vague statements like
 * "Those are among many research papers she has written"
 * "Aside from her work as a researcher and teacher, she has received several awards as well"

Conducting and publishing research is the stock in trade of an academic. Mention notable works, put them in the context of her research program, and leave it at that. Mention specific awards if they are notable, but don't say she has won awards. And if you start a sentence with "Aside from..." don't end it with "...as well".
 * Everything in the lead section needs to be discussed in more depth in the body of the article. And while the lead doesn't have to include sources, the content in the lead needs to be supported by sources where it's discussed in the body of the article.
 * Make sure you attribute things appropriately. For example

When you say "according to", you create some level of doubt. If the source is dubious, don't use it. If the claim has been made, but it has also been questioned, provide a sourced discussion of the claims. If it's an opinion, then by all means say "according to [x]". But even then, you wouldn't say "according to St John's University" unless it was an official statement from the university. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should try and find more sources that are independent. Her university profile isn't independent, nor are her own works.