User talk:Psych480/sandbox

Hi Group 1. You have ink blots as your first choice. You will get a re-direct to the Hermann Rorschach article if you search for Ink blots. There is a stub article titled "Ink blot test" that you should develop instead.J.R. Council (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psych480 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years, critics have voiced numerous concerns about the Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 1991, 1993, 2001b), the most popular system for administering, scoring, and interpreting the Rorschach Inkblot Test. According to critics, the CS norms are in error and can make relatively normal individuals appear to have serious psychopathology (e.g., Wood, Nezworski, Garb, & Lilienfeld, 2001a, 2001b; see also Hamel, Shaffer, & Erdberg, 2000; Shaffer, Erdberg, & Haroian, 1999). Questions have also been raised about the validity of many commonly used CS indices (e.g., Hunsley & Bailey, 1999; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000). Arguments have been made that Rorschach-based expert testimony should not be admissible in court (Grove & Barden, 1999; Grove, Barden, Garb, & Lilienfeld, 2002; cf., Ritzler, Erard, & Pettigrew, 2002a, 2002b), and recent surveys indicate that the use of the test is declining among forensic psychologists (Lally, 2003; Tolman & Mullendore, 2003). This is exactly from the article , https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1005&context=james_wood here is the link Waveyfredo (talk)waveyfredo —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

@Psych480, Isabellagoehring, Alenaj8, and Waveyfredo: Nice work on your draft. Some formatting things you could improve:

Wikipedia uses sentence capitalization, not title capitalization. Only proper nouns should be capitalized, so "The ink blot test" not "The Ink Blot Test". This is true for section headers as well (so "Present applications", not "Present Applications").
References go after punctuation, not before, and there shouldn't be a leading space before the reference.
Properly-formatted references are preferable. If you aren’t sure how to create them, please revisit the section of the training module beginning on this page.
You need to include 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.

Be specific with your statements and make sure that you have sources that support your statements. For example

Most people credit Herman Rorschach...

When you say "most people", what does that mean? How was that determined? Are you talking about the majority of people on the planet? I'm not sure that most people have even heard of Rorschach. Also make sure that you have a supporting source for claims like that.

"Subject" isn't necessarily the best term for "people" in an article aimed at the general public. Specialists use terms like "subjects" to separate themselves from the people they're studying. That distance is actually a disadvantage when you're writing for the average reader.

I noticed that there's a discussion about whether to keep the advantages and disadvantages sections. One possible option would be to combine the "Present applications" with those two sections into a single section called "Applications". Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Group 1! Sounds like you're good to go after you make these changes. Let me know when you're ready to publish. J.R. Council (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've done a quick read and it looks like you've followed Ian's suggestions. I think you're good to publish. Please be sure to follow the instructions below Assignment 9 on Blackboard. Remember to do it "surgically." Don't step on toes by deleting sections already there, although it's okay to do some editing. Good job! J.R. Council (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]