User talk:Wmj1974/sandbox

For Wendy: Yes. It's fine to use references that way. Regarding pictures, that can be tricky. See Wikipedia resources on Blackboard, Illustraing Wikipedia. I have moved this material to the top of the page. J.R. Council (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) For Mariah: If you can find a video, you can certainly put in an external link to that site. There should be a lot of material on her life, due to here prominence. Check Eleanor Maccoby - Psychology's Feminist Voices and Inside the Psychologist's Studio: Eleanor Maccoby in Psychological Science. These were the top hits when I searched on Google. J.R. Council (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) For Brooke: Yes, you can still use the references listed in the current version. You should be able to get Journal Of Social Issues through Interlibrary Loan. There is no charge. J.R. Council (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) For Morgan: Just type wp:infobox in the Wikipedia search box. It will take you to a help page. There is no specific length I am looking for. You just need to write a complete, well-balanced, and well-written article. J.R. Council (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5
First, some general comments. Please note: The instructions said to do Assignment 5 on the sandbox page, and I would comment on the sandbox/talk page. This group has done it on both pages, which is confusing. Please put all of your work in the main sandbox page, it will help keep things straight. Wendy and Morgan need to move their work to the main sandbox page. That said, you've done a nice job of organizing your tasks and finding material. As you are developing your article, be sure to properly format your article for Wikipedia. You will need to do this eventually, and might as well start now. Comments on specific sections:
 * 1) To-do list: Looks good. Appropriate level of detail for now - you'll be adding more. Some of this material belongs in the outline.
 * 2) For instructions on illustrating Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia Resources page on Blackboard.
 * 3) Outline: I meant for groups to do a proper outline, like this:
 * I. Main topic
 * A. Subtopic
 * 1. Sub-sub topic,etc.

You've kind of done this. As you are developing your article, it would still help to use a traditional outline format for organization.
 * Although there is a some of material in the article already, it looks like there is a lot of potential for development. Be sure to fact-check the existing text.
 * 1) References: Some of the reference citations are not formatted properly for Wikipedia. (Some are.) As you add text later, be sure to use the drop-down menu to attach reference citations in appropriate places and format references properly.
 * 2) Task commitments: You've done a bit of this, but it is scattered. It would be useful to consolidate who's doing what in a separate section. J.R. Council (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Feedback
Brooke - I really like the organization of your lead section. Your first paragraph was great, except I would have placed the last sentence with a different paragraph. Your first paragraph gives a great general overview, whereas the last sentence is more specific and would be better suited with a paragraph dedicated to her education/career. Your information on her career at Stanford was really well done; it touched on several different aspects while being brief. Morgan.hausauer (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wendy - I also really like your first paragraph. You did a great job touching on the primary topics associated with her without getting into extra details. I think you included too much information on the books she has written and not enough information on her career at Stanford. I also really liked your section on awards. Including just a few key accomplishments in that paragraph gave an idea of how praised she was without rambling on about it. Morgan.hausauer (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Mariah - Your first paragraph is maybe my favorite from the group, especially the first sentence. It really does encompass the whole article into one sentence and introduces her very nicely. I'm not sure I would include her BS, MA, and PhD in the lead section because the PhD implies that she also received the other two degrees, which can be explained more in the actual article. Your writing about her career at Stanford was also great and I am glad that you talked about the actual studies that she conducted. However, I would have included more on the awards that she won. Morgan.hausauer (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Feedback Wendy Jardon
Brooke your lead covers a good general overview of Eleanor. I agree with Morgan that the first paragraph is general, where the other two paragraphs have more detail. Could add a couple more titles of publications she wrote. I forgot to add about “The Maccoby Award”, so I am glad to see you did. Wmj1974 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Morgan I like the details of your award section but should we add dates till in that section where we would give more details? Plus, I would emphasis the award that was named after her since to me that would seem like a big deal or recognition to have received. The structure of your second paragraph is perfect and good call on adding a study she did. I am wondering if her publications should be a paragraph of its own? Wmj1974 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Mariah should it saw she was awarded her PHD or earned/received? I think a couple more publications should be added so it is knowing that she wrote more then just the one book. This is my choice as the best lead but I have suggestion of combining all to make one. Wmj1974 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Lead:

I say let’s take Mariah’s structure and add Morgan’s study detail plus Brooke’s detail on The Maccoby Award. Along with my detail on her being the 70 out of 100 with APA for the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (same as what Brooke had in hers). I would say to also add another publication like how Morgan had done. What do you all think? Wmj1974 (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Feedback - Mariah Hiltner
Hello all! I agree with Brooke, it seems we all held a general agreement on what information should go into the lead section! I do believe we should try to be a little more general in our lead section so that we can go into more detail in the following sections for example, we could explain she earned (this is a much better word than awarded, thank you Wendy :))her PHD but then when we further explain her education background in the article we can talk about what she majored in, what- who her influences were, etc. We could definitely say more about her awards and publications. In general Brooke, you gave an awesome first paragraph, it gave a great overview of her, Wendy your publications were on point but maybe we want to leave some of those details for the sections in the article, and Morgan I thought your attention to her awards and honors was very respectful to her as a psychologist and researcher! If we are all in agreement to use my lead section, I agree that we should further add details from the rest of the lead sections to make it more whole! Mariah.l.hiltner (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm not quite sure why there are sources listed under my lead section, I did not use any references for my lead... Mariah.l.hiltner (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Feedback - Brooke Honek
After reading all the lead articles I think its fair to say we all have the same general idea of what information we should incorporate in the lead section. I am fine with taking Wendy's suggestion on how to transform the lead, however we will probably have to add and remove some information after we put it all together.

Mariah: I think you have a very strong introduction paragraph and it gives the audience a general idea of who Eleanor Maccoby is as a female psychologist. Wendy: I like how you listed all her publications but do we really need to list all her books in the lead section? That is something worth discussing as a group. Morgan: I like your honors section, I think we should try and figure what awards and honors she received that were were most "famous" and include only those in the lead section.

Do you guys want to be more specific in the lead section or should we keep it super general so we have the ability to go in depth in the sections following the lead section? If we are too specific in the lead section than we will just be repeating information in the sections following; just something to consider! For example, I don't think we need to list off multiple books she wrote because we plan to do that later on in the article. I actually like how Morgan mentioned "The Maccoby Award" without going into a lot of detail. Maybe we can visit other Wikipedia pages to see how much others have went into detail in the construction of the lead section? Brookehonek (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked out Wikipedia pages for other individuals and there are a lot of lists so if we wanted to list all her publications and such we could. What does everyone think we should do? Mr. Council, what do you think would be best? Brookehonek (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential Lead Section
'Eleanor Emmons Maccoby' (born in Tacoma, Washington, May 15, 1917) is a female American psychologist who is most recognized for her research and literary contributions to the field of child and family psychology. Throughout her career, she studied developmental psychology, specifically, she studied sex differences, gender development, gender differentiation, parent-child relations, child development, and social development from the child perspective. Mariah.l.hiltner (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Eleanor Maccoby obtained her M.A and Ph.D from the University of Michigan where she worked under B.F Skinner. She continued her psychology career at Stanford University where she served as a professor, a member and chair of the department of psychology, and conducted research. Her research resulted in multiple publications, her most recognized publication being her book, "The Development of Sex Differences" (1966).

Eleanor Maccoby has received numerous awards for her work, including the American Educational Research Association Award for Distinguished Contributions in Educational Research in 1984, the APA Distinguished Scientific Contributions Award in 1988, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Psychology Foundations in 1996, in addition to being named the first ever recipient of an award named in her honor, The Maccoby Award, in 2000. American Psychological Association listed Eleanor Maccoby as number 70 out of 100 for the most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Brookehonek (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey all!
 * I figured we could just modify this lead that Brooke made last week for our assignment 7. So far I changed "novel" to "book" and took out a few of the publications that we could mention later in the article, I also went through and added commas and rephrased a few of the sentences. Overall Brooke did a great job combining all of our lead sections! Mariah.l.hiltner (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (I can not seem to sign just my changes that I did so I am adding this comment here and pointing out what I added. I added the word various to researches and the aspect she did her dissertation at Skinner's Harvard laboratory plus a couple other words but nothing major. The rest looked very good to me) Wmj1974 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We all had such similar content that I feel like all of our ideas were put together well here. Therefore, the adjustments that I made included grammatical and stylistic changes. Morgan.hausauer (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariah.l.hiltner (talk • contribs)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6
Nice work group! Both on the lead sections and feedback. There's a lot of overlap in the leads, of course. You'll be able to put them together into a nice introduction to the article. I agree with Morgan that Mariah's first couple of sentences are a nice start. Wendy also has some good suggestions for structuring the combined lead. 21:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noticed Brooke's first stab at a combined lead at the end. A couple of comments/suggestions: she did not write a 'novel called "The Development of Sex Differences" - it is a scholarly book. Also, for the lead, you really don't need such long lists of publications and awards. Just mention the most important in the lead, and put the comprehensive lists in the main body of the article. J.R. Council (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7
Excellent work, Group 12! I have no changes to suggest, except to take out the indents, and add reference citations and internal links. You have my thumbs up to develop the rest of your article. I like that you have followed the lead with a final outline. That will make the next steps much easier. J.R. Council (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to let me know who contributed what to this assignment so I can assign grades.
 * BTW, very well written. I made one small edit by changing a, to a ;. J.R. Council (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8
Hi Group 12. Great job on this. Once you clean it up by carefully proofreading and formatting it properly, it's ready for publication to the main article space. The change that will require the most effort is the last one listed - eliminating redundancy. You definitely need to remove the outline headings and indents in order to format it for Wikipedia. Here are my comments on specific sections:
 * Lead: Change "literary" to "scholarly" contributions. To my knowledge, she was not that kind of writer.
 * Background: Proofread. For example, see this mistake in the second sentence: "Her families beliefs". You also need to put your references into proper Wikipedia form. :*Finally, don't refer to people by their first names. Use Maccoby, Jacklin, etc. The exception would be when you need to distinguish her from her husband.
 * Honors and The Maccoby Award: This should be the last section. I tried making some changes to get your table to come out right, but they didn't work. You can still see the information in edit mode. You'll need to reformat your table. Try going into View history to recapture the original table.
 * Career and Contributions to Psychology: This section has a lot of overlap with Educational and Vocational History. They should be combined to eliminate redundancy. J.R. Council (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Assignment #9
I revised the lead section and corrected my back ground section with all of Dr. Council's suggestions for those two sections. I also did my references (but still need to figure out how to reuse a reference) plus added as many internal wiki links as I could to both those sections. Ones I correct my reference questions I feel the lead and background sections are ready for publishing. Let me know what everyone thinks. Also I added an infobox but having a hard time trying to figure out how to add an image to it if anyone wants to help me figure this out, I would not say no. Wmj1974 (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC) OK got the picture added to the infobox and got my references corrected plus cleaned up the references that were stuck on there from other post. I feel my sections are complete and ready for publishing. If anyone has any questions on the stuff I have completed, just let me know. Wmj1974 (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC) The picture can not be added till the article is published so the infobox has to stay pictureless till/or if we finish and publish our article then I can fix it. Wmj1974 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

After taking Dr. Council's suggestions, I combined "Educational and Vocational" history with "Career and contributions to Psychology," to reduce redundancy and structured it properly. I fixed grammatical errors as well. Brookehonek (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I too adjusted the grammar and structure in our Educational and Vocational History as well as properly inserted the references and citations! Mariah.l.hiltner (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I added a few more honors that I was able to find from additional reputable sources. I focused on adding more to the important positions that she held throughout her career in psychology, rather than just the awards that she won. Morgan.hausauer (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Dr. Council's comments: I'm forwarding this to Ian, but here is one change you should make before publishing:
 * Trim down the lead by not listing all the specific awards she received. That's in the main article. J.R. Council (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. I did some copy-editing - for example, references go after punctuation, not before, and there shouldn't be a space before the reference. I also noticed one some section used two spaces between sentences, while the others used one, so I made that consistent. My biggest suggestion is not to call her a "female American psychologist". While that fac that she's a woman psychologist of her generation is notable and interesting to the reader, it isn't a defining character of who she is; if you wouldn't call someone "a male [...]" you probably don't need to call their counterpart "a female [...]". Note that she's a pioneering woman in her field (if that's something sources say about her), but not simply that she's female. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Brooke didn't wait for my final okay before publishing. That's alright. The article is good. Please make sure that you've followed the instructions after Assignment 9 on moving an article to mainspace. Congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)