User talk:Sche422

Hi, Sarah!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Edwards (talk • contribs) 04:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Sarahchehab (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sche422, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sche422! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah

Hey Chica! See you in class!

Sarah

Hi Sarah! It's Jasmine from social psych class. I like your name on here. lol. My favorite color is pink and I love Shrimp Scampi. See you in assessment, tomorrow. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovejonespink (talk • contribs) 13:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing myself

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioural confirmation

Hello, I'm Bamyers99. An edit that you recently made to Behavioural confirmation seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi Sche422. Nice work expanding the Behavioural confirmation article. I just wanted to give you a few tips on how you could improve it further

The lead section could be a lot longer. It's supposed to be a summary of the entire article, including all the major points of it. As you expand other sections, you should try to condense them down to a sentence or two, and work that into the lead.
Bear in mind that you are writing for non-specialists, and you should try to write in plain English as much as possible. For example, a phrase like "previously unacquainted male-and female dyads" could be rephrased as "an unacquainted man and woman" or "an unacquainted male-female pair".
The Critique section uses a different reference style than the rest of the article, and sources that aren't among those listed. While I know you didn't add that section, puzzling out the full citations for the references in that section, and adding them to the article would improve the article nicely.
The Gruman and Ariganello (2002) reference includes the following link http://journals2.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/tmp/4113587650638266543.pdf
Links that include "info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca" are links through your library's proxy serve. These links are only accessible to people who are logged in through your library's website. As a result, they aren't very useful to anyone else. A direct link to the journal's homepage would be more helpful (although a complete reference, as you have already provided, is quite sufficient). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]