User talk:La1228/sandbox

Nice start! I agree that information may be a bit hard to find, but it's out there. The first thing I would do is check the SESP website. It just took me a couple of minutes to find a reference and pdf copy of a paper on the history of the society. (see http://www.sesp.org/officers.htm ) I have printed it off and will give it to you in class.

For Maren: Dr. Hinsz, in our department, is a member. He might be able to give you some leads. You might also try contacting the president of the organization at the url listed above. Tell him what your group is interested in, and ask if SESP has an archivist or historian.

For Austin and Kate: Maren is the only group member who signed her post with the 4 ~s, so I can't tell who contributed or asked questions. Please remember to identify yourselves in the future.

Thanks for clearing that up, Austin.

For Austin: regarding sources, see my answer to Maren, above. I agree it would be good to discuss contributions by founders. See the paper on the history of SESP. I gave Maren a copy.

For Kate: I can't see any contribution from you. Please be sure to stay actively involved. This project is worth 25% of the grade for this class.

I think I've answered this question above in my response to Maren. J.R. Council (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Council (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maren and Kate, should we add or rename some sections? Or do you feel we should just continue from where we are? I wonder if there is a picture(s) we could ad such as a group photo of members to add context. -Austin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinharles (talk • contribs) 20:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding a photo would be a good idea! I think our outline is on the right track. I can take the criteria and members sections under membership. The Members section could be about prominent people who were/are a part of the society. Instead of starting out with "The organization", make sure you write the full name and the definition of what it is. Good start! La1228 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC) La1228 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Bold text Photos would be an awesome idea. I'll try to find some on activities they took part in. I think our topics our a great. I can try to merge the activity and activities section too. KateKlos (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start!

Hi Group 14 -- you've made a very good start on this article. The outline makes sense and you've divided up tasks appropriately. It looks like you've got some good references, so you should have plenty of material. Do try to contact someone in the organization, as I suggested earlier. I agree that a picture would be nice. Finding acceptable pics can be a challenge. Let me know if you need help. J.R. Council (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Peer Review Austin, I think your lead has a very nice start. It should be longer though, to incorporate membership and activities more. A good background and history though. If it was a little longer I think it could stand alone as a concise overview. I like that you start out with when it was established. Make sure you write the full name of the society first instead of just saying the organization. Also include a definition of what the society is right away. La1228 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Peer Review Maren, your lead is well done. I would be careful though on how quickly you jump from the historical aspect to the current membership formatting. I am currently having trouble with using ref tags, so my lead will need citations like yours. I think we may need to edit the lead and history to avoid unnecessarily redundancy.Austin H 06:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead Peer Review Kate, I like your lead and it covers all the aspects of the society. We all need to use references, but need to figure out how. Your sentence order seems a little choppy at times, but you relay the information well. Maybe try connecting the sentences better. La1228 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Peer Review Austin, I like the way you started your lead section but the last sentence is a bit lengthy. The last sentence entails great information but its just a little long. You could possibly try to shorten it or maybe have more than one sentence. Other than that nice work! KateKlos (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Peer Review

Maren, I like the summary of the organization. It gave a great overview of what the article is about. It does jump from when it was founded to the present organization but its a minor detail. I like your word choice in the lead section. Nice job! KateKlos (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 6

For Austin: Very nice job! Just a couple of suggestions. First, the phrase "Due to the large nature that much of other psychology societies of the time had become" is ungrammatical. You also have a quote that is unattributed. I don't think direct quotes really belong in the lead. Summarize/paraphrase in the lead. Use the quote and citation later. Otherwise, very good.

For Maren: Nice job, but there are two main problems with the lead as you wrote it. Your first sentence, "The Society of Experimental Social Psychology(SESP) is all about advancing social psychology" is too informal and sounds a bit biased. Second, last half of your lead is a set of directions on how to become a member. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Some of this material could be added to the article later, but it should not be the main material in the article.

For Kate: This is also a very good lead. Just one change needed: The last sentence, "These journals are the works of the society's members." is clumsy. In fact, for the lead I would just leave it out.

For all: I like the direct feedback you've given each other and agree with it. You've got all the material you need here for a very good lead section. My suggestion would be to combine Austin's and Kate's sections to begin Assignment 7.

J.R. Council (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify we are not suppose to be editing the article right away, correct? We are suppose to write our section in the sandbox first? KateKlos (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Everything in the sandbox first La1228 (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn't see my edits from my phone...Turns out I didn't save my edits from my computer, but rather had it on preview. Just needed to press enter. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinharles (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kate, do you have sources for your section? We can add in those references to make the article better and more valid.La1228 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. I'll put them up!KateKlos (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 7

Hi Group 14. 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! It will not be hard to get this ready to move to the main article space.
2. Proofread the whole article. Some sentences have minor grammatical errors. Also, you need to edit out tags from group members.
3. My main suggestion is to get this article properly formatted and organized as a Wikipedia article, with the correct section headings. Section titles should not have bullets.
4. There is one empty section, See Also. Either add some content or delete. Additional internal links can also be added. If you work on these things, you'll have plenty to do before I get back Sunday evening. J.R. Council (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: All the above comments still apply. Here are some more suggestions:
Lead: Content is fine, but writing is choppy, especially second half. Proofread and rewrite so it flows better.
History: Proof read. Only use bold type when the society is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead. You can just call it SESP after that.
Membership: This section is also choppy, and contains grammatical errors. Proof and rewrite to improve flow. This should not be a "how-to" manual on becoming a member. Just describe the characteristics of the membership. Link to their website for information on how to apply.
Activity: Title this section Activities. This section is written very informally. Again, proofread and rewrite to improve flow. Delete last 3 sentences - irrelevant. A quorum is a general term that applies to any gathering where voting takes place.
Contributions: Again, proof read and work on writing.

For example, you've written: "There are two publications that SESP contributes to, which are Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and Social Psychological and Personality Science." This should be written: "SESP publishes the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology and Social Psychological and Personality Science."

J.R. Council (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 8 decision

Hi Group 14. This looks great! It could still use some polishing, but I see you've made most of the corrections I suggested. I'm sending to Ian at WikiEd for his suggestions and decision. Nice job! J.R. Council (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Looks good, but the Membership and criteria section still needs some work. For starters, only the first sentence has a supporting citation - the rest of that paragraph is uncited. I also think that section has information that's too specific - the average reader doesn't care about all the criteria for membership, while someone who actually wants to join wouldn't rely on the Wikipedia article for this sort of information - they would go to the society's web page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]