User talk:Haylee.schumacher/sandbox

For all of you - nice job! You've made a good start on developing an article about an important female psychologist. It is very incomplete right now, so it won't be hard to improve it significantly.

For Haylee: Regarding her personal life, the article is about her, so some biography is completely appropriate. Regarding Psychology's Feminist Voices, this is a very credible source, even if it is not a refereed journal article. You should use it.

For Sarah: The goal for your group should be to write a balanced article. Her bio, accomplishments, and research on her theory all have a place. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You want to be concise - this should not read like a term paper.

For Cassie: see my comments above. You don't need to go into great detail on anything in particular, but be complete. Try to include significant information about Bayley's life and her major accomplishments.

J.R. Council (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great start!

Hi Group 7 -- you have made a great start on this article. With this groundwork, it should be easy to write the lead. I'm impressed that you are already thinking about how this will look in final form, i.e., info box, picture, etc. Nice job! J.R. Council (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Cassie's lead section

I liked that you started off with what she is most known for, then went through her life sequentially. Having her notable accomplishments right at the beginning is helpful, especially when people search for her and need to know what she is famous for right away. I think your lead did a good job in establishing Bayley's notable roll in the field of psychology by briefly mentioning her major works. There were a few places with errors in capitalization in the lead though, and at one point you referred to her as "Nancy," when I think it's more professional to call her by her last name, so I'd just be more cautious of those things in the future. Haylee.schumacher (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have source [9] cited a few times, but there isn't a reference actually listed for it. I'm assuming you meant to click one of the other sources? Haylee.schumacher (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment's on Sarah's lead section

I think that this offers a lot of information about Bayley, serving as a good introduction of her life and work. The latter portion of the lead could benefit from more transitional phrases between the sentences. At the moment, they seem like a set of independent sentences, without any real connection or tie in to each other. I do like that you mentioned her major works, including her thesis and awards as well. Also, mentioning that her scales are still being studied today is very relevant.

Haylee.schumacher (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 6

For Sarah: Nice job, but I do have some suggestions. First, there are some grammatical errors. You need to proofread carefully. For the lead, you don't need to mention her husband or the specific awards she received. Otherwise, very good. You left very little feedback for the others.

For Haylee: Very good! Well-written - maybe just condense and combine the second and third sentences. Nice job commenting on the others' work.

For Cassie: Another nice job! However, I would not talk about her death and awards in the same sentence the way you did. I don't see where you've left any comments on the others' leads at all.

For all: Remember to put her name in bold in the first sentence of the lead. Mention of the Stanford-Binet is interesting, but but that level of detail is not necessary in the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies for how to write a biography. For the lead, it says:

Name(s) and title(s), if any
Dates of birth and death, if known (but for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence); for how to write these dates, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Dates of birth and death;
Context (location or nationality);
In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
The notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played;
Why the person is notable.

J.R. Council (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 7

Hi Group 7. This is just some quick feedback to get you going on Assignment 8. I will be getting back on Sunday with more detailed comments.
1. This article is coming along very nicely. Great job!
2. Proofread the whole article. There are a number of sentences that have minor grammatical errors or typos.
I think there's really very little to do besides some polishing before this article is ready to move to the Wikipedia main article space. J.R. Council (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followup. Just a few more suggestions:
1. Put in some internal links in the lead, e.g., Berkeley Growth Study and the subsequent Bayley Scales of Infant Development.
2. Regarding the comment at the end, Clarifications needed: What does "wider knowledge of content" mean? Also, what does it mean that each task is either given credit or not? What causes credit to be given, and does this only apply to motor tasks?

I agree. It is unclear what these statements mean. I imagine the first means a greater range of tasks presented in the revision. Not sure about the second. Does you mean tasks are scored pass/fail?

Let me know when you make final changes, and I will ask Ian to vet your article for publication.
J.R. Council (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 8 decision

Hi Group 7. Great job on this! I am forwarding this to Ian at WikiEd for his suggestions and final approval. J.R. Council (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Looks good overall. The "Selected works" section is rather long and lacks obvious criteria for inclusion - why these, why not others? It's more common to list books, and less common to list individual papers, unless they are especially notable.

Other than that, make sure that the references follow punctuation. They should be inserted after the period or common, not before. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

Great job on this! You've my thumbs-up to publish. Please see the instructions on Blackboard following Assignment 9 on how move the article over to main space. Congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]