Talk:Open relationship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin reviewing this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice two big issues with the article, first and foremost. The article needs to be wikified throughout (see Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify on how to handle that), and the references need to be properly formatted; see Wikipedia:Citing sources on how to do that properly. I'll give you 3 days to do that stuff, then I'll start reviewing the prose. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three days are almost up, and most of the issues raised by me and the GA reviewer have not been addressed. Please note that the clock is ticking here, and quite loudly at that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry for the delay, I'm working off of an extremely busy schedule and with very little internet accessibility. My partner and I will try to address these issues over this weekend. Unfortunately siting has always been my weakness with Wikipedia and every time I try to follow the formats and guides it never seems to work properly, whereas my partner is much more efficient with that type of stuff. I will see to it that he finds time to do this immediately. Sorry once again for the delay Marikathrynarnold (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It's been a little busy to devout all my time on wikipedia, considering I am enrolled in 5 other classes that demand similar work as well. Please be understanding in granting more time to make these corrections... It's been hard to write 5 research papers and learn a whole new way of presenting information that we have been required to learn (Wikipedia) this semester. Also, I'd like know how my grade towards the wiki-deadlines was not updated...Mari-Katheryn and myself have been working on the deadlines and project for months now. Thanks. MatthewSniscak (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Drive by reviewer here. There are a couple of big improvements that could be made immediately: (1) the article seems to rely on a single source, Taormino. A few sources should be used. (2) The footnotes are formatted improperly: they need to include the page number from the source; and also they should not contain the full URL of Google Books, repeated in each footnote. The URL only has to appear once, usually in the References section. Each individual footnote just needs to say "Taormino, p. 252" or whatever. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they link to specific pages, those links should very much remain. Google Book page links are the best type of references, even through they are not required, and we accept unlinked, bare footnotes. The editors can chose to use better or beyond-required standards if they chose from, fortunately. That said, shortening could be fine (if again optional), as long as the link is preserved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't link to specific pages. They all link to the same top-level Google Books site for the (entire) source book. --Noleander (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is one of the problems with reference to be addressed. I am surprised none of the group members tried fixing it or even approached me for help over the past few days; I've been helping several other groups to troubleshoot various technical issues like this one after our classes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what needs to be done, but I don't understand how Wikipedia formats my sources for me. I can easily place what pages I received my information from for my sources that I used, but I'm confused as to where in the article they should appear. I thought that by hitting on the references part to edit it that I would be able to add those next to the footnotes where it appears as additional text, but whenever I try to edit it, it appears different in the sandbox then it does in the final page. I don't see how I can edit this section to place the page numbers in if they don't appear when I try to edit it. Another problem that I have been having is the fact that I do not have a laptop and find that getting answers to my questions by use of a desktop is extremely difficult since I am a visual learner and need things to be shown to me. Unfortunately technology and I do not get along very well, and it makes completing this page to a high standard extremely difficult and stressful. I assure you that I am doing my best in researching to get answers to my questions but in doing so, it tends to raise more questions, thus confusing me. I am sorry for the delays and am trying my best. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the edit toolbar enabled in preferences? It will automatically format inline references for you so they show up properly with all the info. If not, the option (while logged in) is at the very top of the screen with your user name. Click on "My preferences" then select "editing." The display edit toolbar option can be checked. The reference tab allows you to format based on web, book and news sources by filling in the appropriate boxes. To get them to show up, put {{Reflist}} under the References heading. Froggerlaura (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for easy footnotes

@ Marikathrynarnold: here is an easy way to do it. Let say you are using two books as sources. The first thing you do is create a References section at the bottom of the article that looks like this:

==Footnotes==

==References==

*Smith, Tom, ''A Very Nice Book'', Oxford Press, 2003.

*Jones, Mariah, ''Another Book'', Cambridge, 2006.

Then, throughout the body of the article, after each sentence, you include "shortened" footnotes that look like this:

Water can be cold.<ref>Smith, p 25</ref> And it can also be wet.<ref>Jones, p 262</ref>

That is all there is to it. The URL referring to the Google Book site is optional. If you really want to include it, do it in the References section once per book, and dont repeat it in each "ref" footnote. --Noleander (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can get a direct page reference, in which is should be used once per that page reference. Not that as far as I know there is anything in Wikipedia's Manual of Style that discourages it from being used more; I am pretty sure this is just up to editor's preferences (see WP:CITEVAR). There are many ways to reference an article; I've written GAs where full details, with Google Book links (to specific pages), where used in a footnote. An important point is consistency (you should not have some shortened references mixed with some full ones). Lastly, the http://reftag.appspot.com/ tool helps with Google Books referencing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, you are right, and there are many ways to skin a cat. My impression of the editor is that they could use some simple instructions on how to start building page-specific cites. Your recommendations strike me as a bit advanced. I was just trying to help them take baby steps. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your approach, it is just that I find the reftag tool can be used to achieve some very good baby steps. It takes no more than few seconds to copy a Google page link into it, and one click generates a cite template that can be easily pasted into an article. That of course assumes the use of Google Books; which is indeed not required, but (from where I stand) highly advisable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is approaching a week inactivity mark. Please post an update on what has changed soon, or it may be closed due to no activity from the editors (students) involved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a prose review some time tonight or tomorrow. I've been backlogged badly on my end but it's mostly taken care of now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before I do I would like to see wikification finished. Some progress has been made there but not enough. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and noting that both I and Wizardman have noted the need for wikification in our preliminary reviews on 14 November. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since that has finally been addressed, I'll throw out some prose comments tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on adding more information. As you can see I added some more on the study of jealousy within the Negatives section. Although I did this, I know that my citing of the sources is not correct. Could someone show me a tool that will help me cite a journal article? I find Wikipedia quite confusing whenever I try to cite something in it.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your editing toolbar, click on Cite (to the right of the option list), then on templates, then select cite journal, then fill in as much information as you can (minimum required is author, title, date, publisher and the url, as noted on our wiki syllabi. Let me know if that helps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotr, I have all the sources updated except for one. I found your cite toolbar to be extremely helpful except it seems to not work for this one. Here is what I think should be right and work, "<ref name="Hollander1974">{{cite journal|last=Hollander|first=Elaine K.|coauthors=Howard M. Vollmer|title=Attitudes Toward "Open Marriage" Among College Students as Influenced by Place of Residence|journal=Youth Society|date=1|year=1974|month=September|volume=6|issue=3|doi=10.1177/0044118X7400600101}}</ref>" but its not seeming to correspond with the references in my article.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what are you saying: the reference seems to be present in the article, and is used numerous times. It looks fine to me...? In fact I am satisfied with all the references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some prose comments:

Any reason "Compartment Four Relationships." is capitalized? If it supposed to be then I wont worry about it.
"is defined as a traditional friendship which sexual contact and intimacy is" use where rather than which.
"Here we tend to see three types of participants, core members," colon after participants
"Although it has been around since the 70’s we" change to 1970s and add comma after it.
"other racial minorities. [7]" rm space after punctuation.

Once those issues are fixed, ideally tonight, i'll bump the assessment to a B. I'll also finish reading the article and note any further prose comments below tonight, and I'll leave this open another 48/72 hours. It's a tight window due to grades needing to be due, and my apologies for taking so long to wrap this up. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the prose that you asked me too. As for the first one with "Compartment Four Relationships," my source actually had that capitalized so I followed suit. I personally have never seen that term before and it wasn't referenced in any other article that I found so I just assumed that is the way to refer to it. I hope this is of some help.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have fixed the problems that you have seen so far, it has also occurred to me that I'm not really aware of what else I will need to do to my article to potentially get it up to the "Good Article" status. Can you also give me more hints on what you are looking for? Marikathrynarnold (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all that's left on my end is just re-reading the article to make sure there's no confusing sentences, typos, etc. Here's the rest of my issues:

"It is is often seen" Just one is.
"and wanted,intellectual variety," space after comma
"Those who sustain an open relationship begin to meet others with the same outlooks which helps the couples and individuals create new social and sexual relationships and friendships, they find others who they can connect with on an intellectual and emotional level, and they even find others who can help with careers and family aspects of life.[5]" this could use a bit of rewording. tweak to 'outlook on life', and the part after friendships could either being its own sentence or split by a semicolon instead of a comma.
"will no longer exist. The relationship" a semicolon after exist would work better.
"This emotion, jealousy," The sentence can just start at jealousy, since the rest doesn't really add anything.
"80% of participants in op[en relationships" in open
The successful open relationships section feels a bit too long, and is perhaps a bit overdetailed in places. Reading that part felt like it dragged on; see if there's sentences that can be cut or combined that say nearly the same thing as other sentences. The trust paragraph, for example, could be trimmed and added to the honesty paragraph; phrases like "it is crucial to keep in mind" are unnecessary and can be cut out.
"Also dealing with communication, is the" no comma needed

This is most of the concerns, with only a couple sections left. I stopped there since I'd like to see that section cleaned up early tomorrow. I'll conclude the review with any final concerns after that, though I do believe this is most of them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've gone through and completed the corrections that you have asked. Let me know if you would like me to try and cut down the successful open relationships section some more. I will do my best if you are unhappy with it. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look better now. Here's my final wave of issues:

"it is one be conscious of not attacking a partner" It feels like this is missing a word or two; reword.
"Although this aids in many successful relationships, unfortunately it does not prevent miscommunication, misunderstandings, or hurtful actions. It does however help to limit these." could be trimmed a bit to "...relationships and limits miscommunication, it does not..."
"receive equally. [4]" fix space before ref.
"Swinging in the United States, was the first" no comma needed.
"concepts(open relationships" add space before parenthesis
"1960’s." 1960s; on the cite apostrophes aren't needed for decades.

I have no further concerns, so once these are fixed I'll close the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed everything that you have asked me to do. Thank you so much for your feedback. Marikathrynarnold (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one last issue I caught just before I was going to close this: "^ Wayne Weiten; Dana S. Dunn; Elizabeth Yost Hammer (1 January 2011). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-18663-0. Retrieved 20 November 2011.[page needed]" The page needed needs to be fixed. I'll close the review in another few hours so I may pass this in good faith it'll be fixed, but ideally that'll be swiftly addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry about the missing page. I had not even noticed that because I plug it into a citation tool. That should be everything hopefully.Marikathrynarnold (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything finally looks good now, so I'm willing to pass the article as a GA. Well done! Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]