Wikipedia talk:Benelux Education Program/Maastricht University/FPN Historical Book Review Spring 2018

Hi I think there may be a few problems with some of the articles written that contain an awful lot of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I have moved one back to draft space Draft:The Hygiene of Womanhood: A book for mothers and daughters being lectures to ladies on common sense guides to health, strength and beauty. It had already been tagged by another new pages reviewer as containing original research but when I looked at the sources there was almost nothing to show that this book meets WP:NBOOK.

I have also tagged Studies in the Psychology of Sex Vol. 7 as containing WP:OR notably for certain phrases such as "and hence can be considered an early representative of transgender individuals". this conclusion is not in the source provided. "All seven volumes of Studies in the Psychology of Sex were widely accepted in the scientific community,[15] even with the progressive perspectives in which it portrayed human sexuality and perversions" this is also not in the source used as a footnote. This phrase "Despite this, the book was not published in England until the middle of the 20th century, as it was strongly believed that putting Ellis’ ideas into the public would increase the rates of individuals with sexual perversions" uses Ellis' 1900 book as a reference but this can't support a statement that explains why it was not published until after his death.

I really believe these problems should be addressed with the students as this seems to be a general misunderstanding. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)