Talk:Edna Frances Heidbreder

Peer Feedback: Balanced Content

Group 1 suggested we explore Heidbreder’s contributions in detail. They also - along with group 5 - suggested adding a legacy/death section. The article already covers contributions in ‘Committees and Awards’ and ‘Seven Psychologies’ (Which was one of her biggest contribution, hence why we have a whole section dedicated to it). The suggestion of a legacy section would be a nice idea, however there is not much that could be added to that section that hasn’t already been spoken about or covered in the rest of the article. Her contributions and work for her legacy were already accounted for in most sections of the article.

Groups 1 and 2 said to talk more about Heidbreder’s involvement in women’s rights and how she changed it. While Heidbreder was a strong advocate of women’s rights, there was not a lot she did in terms of legal actions or changing laws for the movement (or at least in terms of what available information shows). She noticed the very obvious stereotypes people attributed women with, and had her own opinions about it, as talked about in our ‘Women’s Rights’ section.

Groups 4 and 5 asked for more information on early/personal life. Unfortunately, there isn’t too much information on other more personal details, or information on early life about Heidbreder. There isn’t much more that can be added besides the main details already covered in the article (at least in terms of the research we covered).

Groups 6 suggested adding a section for developmental psychology. While she did show interest in a number of different topics including developmental psychology, most of her work covers her main areas on interest (introversion versus extroversion, and other personal psychology topics) and/or areas in relation to work with colleagues (The Minnesota Mechanical Ability Test). There is not much information about other work she might have done, including developmental psychology. And even if there was information on it, it would not be enough for a whole section dedicated to it alone.

JordanM044 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Feedback: Clarity of Structure

The role I had was “Clarity of Structure.” For the first group’s feedback, I believe it was meant for another group as our article did not contain the sub-headings of “Impact on Society,” or “Criticisms” or any info regarding “the television and radio 64 000$ question.” Therefore, it was not taken into consideration.

In regards to the second group’s feedback, no changes were taken into consideration as this group gave our article a perfect score and a positive review.

In regards to the third group’s feedback, I created a section of “List of Publications” at the end of the article, listing the sub-headings of “Research” and “Reviews” underneath it. This would assist in creating a more organized article as it gave the related lists its own section.

In regards to the feedback given from groups 4-6, I have taken it into consideration and divided “Education and Career” into two sections. This change would assist in creating a more easy-to-read article, as the reader now has the option to read either about "Education" or "Career," without sifting through one to get to the other.

Group 4’s suggestion of creating a section dedicated to “Recognitions” was not used as it did not make sense to dedicate an entire section to a quote and we already have a section dedicated to “Committees and Awards” that discusses her recognitions.

I made some minor editing changes in the sections I have written of “Reviews,” “Research,” and “Seven Psychologies.”

I included the publication year in the subheading of “Thinking as an Instinct.”

I added categories at the end of the article and reformatted the chart we have to the Wiki infobox format.

I have found a picture that I followed up previously with Wiki about using. I wrote a brief line about it in the infobox.

Established19 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Established19

Peer Feedback: Neutral Tone

The first group suggested that the word "thoroughly" indicates bias, but it was being used to describe how well she examined criteria. There was not any persuasion being indicated and because of this the suggestion was not used. A couple groups brought up that our quotes used throughout our article can show bias towards Heidbreder. They were used to show that well-known psychologists have shown her recognition as she is a relatively unknown woman psychologist. The recognition she has received from R.M . Elliot and Kurt Koffka show that she has had enough impact to receive attention, which is why the quotations were used. They were explicitly quoted, so there wasn't any indication that these ideas were ours. A quote from her college saying that they were looking for the "most distinguished woman psychologist in the country" was used to show that Heidbreder falls into this category according to the college. The last group commented on something that would apply to the balanced content section, not neutral tone.

justanotherstudent1 ( talk) comment added 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Friday night check

Hey all,

Great draft and great teamwork!

Lauren (Musicog94)

Musicog94 (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note, on the rough copy all citations had to be replaced with [x] because the numbers were creating duplicates of the same source in the final version. All sources are referenced properly (at the bottom and in-text) in the final draft

Mmilt01 (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)