Talk:Information centre hypothesis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Js7581.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Here are some thoughts to get this article ready for main space:

1. No level 1 (or any level) section headers on the lead section.
2. The lead should not contain any unique info not already detailed in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. The lead merely summarizes the most important info from the article.
3. Per WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible. You start off by saying what it states; how about saying what it is (I know nothing about the topic, but it sounds to me like it is a theory about birds which exhibit communal behavior... or, ...why birds join communal groups (don't use my words, I'm just going by the rest of the article; it's up to you to find a good definition, which is backed up by reliable sources. But the bottom line, is that it is a theory about bird behavior... so maybe that's a good place to start.
4. The article is currently an WP:ORPHAN, because it has no in-links. Find some articles on Wikipedia which already mention the theory, and turn the mentions into wikilinks. If not mentioned anywhere, consider adding the title term to articles where it would make sense, and add a link. At the outside, you could find articles related to the topic, and simply add a link in a bullet in the See also section of other articles. Aim for at least three in-links.
5. While your references look good at first glance, they lack specificity because it looks like the page numbers reference the page range for the entire article. Please add specific page numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean the same page range for the whole article, for every single footnote: it means, just the page (or pages) where the source article (or book) verifies the claim you are making in the text. See also {{rp}} for how to reuse named references that in footnotes that refer to different page numbers.
6. While it's not required, it's a good idea to add a See also section. See MOS:ORDER for exactly where to place this section. If you can, link a few other articles on Wikipedia, one article link per bullet, from this section. The convention is, if the article is already linked in the body of your article, then it does not belong in the See also links.
7. Another optional section is Further reading, where, if you want, you can link other articles and books which have important information on the topic of the article, but which you did not specifically use in footnotes. See MOS:ORDER.

There's more, but this should keep you busy for a bit. You're on the right track, now tidy it up a bit more, and you're almost ready for prime time! Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC) updated at Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

8. Adding wikilinks to the article would be advisable, as well. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the list from bullets in the list above to numbered, so you can refer to them by number below, when they're done. For example:

4. Orphan – done

or similar. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Communal roosting covers much of the same ground

See my bullet point above about inlinks and WP:ORPHAN. I found an inlink for you, to de-orphan your article, and I was going to just hint at it, and see if you could find it yourself. But in fact, I can't do that; I have to tell you which article it is, because there's an overlap issue concerning the two articles that needs to be resolved. It's the Communal roosting article.

When writing a brand new article at Wikipedia, you should always check whether someone else might have already written it, or included it as part of some other article. In this case, Communal roosting has extensive information about ICH. That doesn't mean you absolutely can't create your article as a new article, but it does mean that probably other editors should get involved, have a look at your article, and decide whether your content should be merged into that one, whether you should create the new article anyway and some of the content tjere should be merged into this one, leaving a summary there, or what exactly. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) to alert him to this situation. Mathglot (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

    Hi, thank you for all of the feedback! I created a wikilink on the Communal roosting page to bring readers to the ICH standalone page. I am also about to add a sentence to the page for Amotz Zahavi regarding his role in the creation of the ICH and link it back as well. I am continuing to work on the other items you've suggested. Thanks again! Js7581 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:REDUNDANT and WP:CONTENTFORK. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hello! I am a student editor at Wikipedia and this semester I have created the article, Information centre hypothesis. After creating the article, it was brought to my attention that the 'Communal roosting’ article already has a section on the ICH. I have linked my article to the Communal roosting article. I posted mine as a separate article because I feel this theory is distinctive enough to have a page separate from Communal roosting. However, I am looking forward to having other Wiki editors review the page and perhaps have some discussion as to whether the page should be a standalone, or if the information should be incorporated into the communal roosting page. I would also like to note that I tried to find a Wikipedia article that talked about the ICH before beginning the new article, but a Wikipedia search and a Google search brought back no results, so I didn’t think there was any previous information regarding the ICH on Wikipedia. My course is ending now, but I hope my work from this semester will contribute something positive to Wikipedia. Editing has been a great experience and I look forward to continuing in the future. Thank you. Js7581 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible HISTMERGE needed for full attribution

The creation of this article was a bit convoluted, and included a cut-paste move. (See details, here.) It's possible that a History merge might be necessary in order to provide full attribution for this article. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)