Talk:Critical communicative methodology
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
I have added an article about the Critical Communicative Methodology. Thanks in advance for your contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamema (talk • contribs) 09:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
DGG. I have improved the article and for this reason I delete the template as you suggest. If you considered that I have to improve it with more information, please tell me in user talk. Thanks for your contribution.Pamema (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Each individual statement of opinion needs a specific reference. If it is to something as general as a book, include the page numbers. For example, when you say something like "Harold Garfinkel´s ethnomethodology (1967) framework is considered for a better understanding of the subjects insights in their contexts." you need a published source for who exactly has said it contributes a better understanding, and where. If you say "Others authors such as Jerome Bruner or Amartya Sen, have recognized the relevancy of the Critical Communicative Methodology, as well." you need to give an exact reference, and if challenged, the actual quotation.
similarly, the items in references should be referred to. You can use a "Further reading" section for general references, but it is better to find some specific place to link them. for example, what is the relevance of the Claveria reference? And you can only use published references, not position papers on the web or unpublished conference talks. . As for the external links, see WP:EL. I am not sure any of them meet the requirements.
As a point of style, we do not use capitals in internal text: change all mentions of Critical Communicative Methodology to critical communicative methodology or at least Critical communicative methodology. We also avoid vague words, and phrases, such as "it is important that". I am willing to do some of the copy-editing, but help me by doing as much as you can yourself. Encyclopedic style is concise & descriptive; I sometimes even say dull & descriptive. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
DGG, thanks a lot for your contributions. As you can check it, I have improve it taking into account your contributions. Pamema (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
DGG and Pamema, I have just deleted the warning template. Article has been improved. Only a recommendation: you could improve more this article if you can review english.CarmeGY (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC).