User talk:Caleb Zander/sandbox

Assignment 4

First, all of this should be in Caleb's Sandbox, not Sandbox Talk. J.R. Council (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allie's Thoughts: 1. A problem with Ruth Winifred Howard's article: This is pretty obvious, but it's incredibly short. There has to be more on this individual. 2. Here are two sources for RWH that aren't listed in her Wiki article: http://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/ruth-howard-biography.aspx https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=rUCUAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22ruth+winifred+howard%22&ots=7eN0z7Idk-&sig=yKBjAkG5ATHnivckPmkNew4rM4Q#v=onepage&q=%22ruth%20winifred%20howard%22&f=false (the second one is a Google preview of a book and I have yet to check if it's available at the NDSU library) 3. My 2 questions for Prof. Council: Where else besides Google Scholar and NDSU library can we try to find sources for our article (the Google results are very limited)?

Go ahead and cast a broader net. Just try a general search with Google. Check Women in Psychology websites like "Psycholgy's Feminist Voices." Also sites devoted to African American psychologists.

How much are we allowed to talk about/include other people in Howard's life (i.e. close friends, spouses, siblings, etc.)? Alliejuve (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly include other people in her life in a Personal background section. Make sure they are important influences though.J.R. Council (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Zander: 1. A problem I found with this article was that it had a lot of links to pages that do not exist. 2. I found http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0143034308101847 http://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/ruth-howard-biography.aspx 3. My first question is that is it better to have a lot more headings that are more specific, but have less content. Or to have less, more broad headings, that have more content under them?

I think it's best not to break it up into a lot of short sections.

Second question is if there is a recommended length for the overall article? Or is it more about the quality of the writing?

Make it long enough to cover the topic well. Quality of writing is important. Don't pad to make it longer. J.R. Council (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kockelman So, looking over the article, there really isn't ANYTHING about her. The talk page also has no conversation at all and only lists it as a start for its quality. I found these two sources, (https://www.feministvoices.com/ruth-howard/) (http://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/ruth-howard-biography.aspx) That contain a bunch of stuff that isn't included in her Wikipedia page. The only real questions I have are 1) How many Headings can we have in a good article?

Read the brochure on writing Wikipedia articles in psychology. It has a section on writing about people that lists appropriate headings.

2) How many images can be included before the article is considered to just be cluttered?John McClain (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think you'll find too many images of RWH. In general, just keep number of images to what's necessary. Don't clutter. J.R. Council (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allie, if you could add sources and edit my assignment 7 lead section, then everyone will have worked on it.Caleb Zander (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

@Caleb Zander, Alliejuve, Ash96hassam, and John McClain: Nice start on your draft. As Dr Council mentioned, you need inline references (if you aren’t sure how to do this, please revisit the section of the training module beginning on this page) and section headers. As he mentioned, you shouldn't use phrases like "brush up on" - bear in mind that not all your readers are going to be Americans (or even people who speak English as their first language). Simpler, more standard terminology is easier for readers. You also need links to other Wikipedia articles. Topics and terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be linked the first time they appear in the article.

Biographies on Wikipedia tend to follow a semi-standard layout. You should consult the "Editing Biographies" handout (that I have linked to here). It has a lot of useful information on layout. Keep in mind that you are expanding the Ruth Winifred Howard article - you should try to expand and improve what's there, not write a duplicate article.

Wikipedia articles don't use honorifics, so don't use "Dr" as part of people's names. Either refer to them by their full name, or use their surname. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]