Talk:Carol Kuhlthau

Untitled

I'm a bit boggling about this article. It's titled with the woman's name, when it's overwhelmingly not actually about her, but rather a model she created. The model section is almost entirely in sentence fragments, and should probably be separated into "what the model is" and then "for example, in making a wikipedia article, stage one would be THIS, Stage two would be THAT, etc", just for clarity. the article also has no citations. I'm tagging it unreferenced, wikify, cleanup, tone, and maybe after the model section is cleaned up more, it could be moved to a new section (being moved while it still has references to writing a wikipedia article would make it more confusing, I think). I think this could be a great and informative wikipedia article, if it were just comprehensible. Cantras 19:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to do what you suggested - hope it's a bit clearer now. It's a shame none of the stages of the Model included "ensuring presentation of researched material is written in an appropriate style". Windymilla 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Category

Wiki likes categories. Can you put Ms. Kuhlthau in an appropriate category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.167.161.228 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

More to go

It is appropriate to have the page about her, mentioning both her books and other published works and her widely accepted model of reference work. It would also be appropriate to have a more detailed article on the model. This article should be done first

As for this article, it apparently isn't clear why she is so important, and the following is needed:

listing college degrees with university and year -- and putting the university names in double brackets listing important awards listing important memberships and offices held In addition to books, listing some major published papers, say how many total. State the importance the journals are. Say how many other papers cited them. and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. These is, very unfortunately, some prejudice against people from the academic world.

And in this case, some references to general works that use her theory as the model.

I will be glad to helpDGG 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carol Kuhlthau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220011246/http://library.humboldt.edu/ic/general_competency/kuhlthau.html to http://library.humboldt.edu/ic/general_competency/kuhlthau.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)