User talk:PsychstudentUCLA
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Los_Angeles_(UCLA)/Psychology_220A_(Fall,_2017). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, PsychstudentUCLA, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
With collectivism:
- Section headers are written in sentence case.
- References always go after punctuation.
See MOS:HEAD and WP:CITEFOOT, respectively, for further information. Thanks, !dave 18:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
PsychstudentUCLA, I see that you both nominated your own article for GAN, and then turned around and opened a GA review for the above article. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, there were a number of issues with the review page; I've done my best to fix some of the technical ones.
It turns out that the person who nominated the article last April also hasn't edited on Wikipedia since April 28, so it's unlikely that they will be responding to your review. The article was tagged back in May, and nothing has been done to solve the issue since then. While it is unlikely, someone else might decide to work on the article. If there isn't any action on the nomination in the next seven days—we typically allow at least that much time for someone to respond here on Wikipedia—then it will be safe to close the GA review, as none of the issues raised in the review will have been addressed.
I'd like to suggest that you not do any further GA reviews until you're much more familiar with Wikipedia and what makes a Good Article. So far you've only written the one article you just nominated, and when it is ultimately reviewed, I imagine you'll learn a great deal about the ins and outs of the GA criteria and how they are used. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)