Talk:Debora Hammond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Debora Hammond was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 26, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know

GA nomination[edit]

After reviewing the article, I've decided to fail the article's GA nomination. Here are a few issues I had with the article, hopefully someone can address these soon and renominate the article:

  • The article needs to be referenced more thoroughly. The Biography section, for instance, has 6 paragraphs but only 2 references. At least each paragraph should have a citation, ideally every sentence/new thought.
  • The format of the references do not conform to standard wiki style. Specifically, citations should come after punctuation, not before. For example:
When Hammonds started here Ph.D. research on the history of systems thinking, she found a variety of divergent traditions, which were hard to handle.[1]
not this:
When Hammonds started here Ph.D. research on the history of systems thinking, she found a variety of divergent traditions, which were hard to handle [2].
Also, multiple citations should not have a space between them. For instance:
These articles draw upon this research on the history of the general systems movement.[3][4][5][6][7]
  • Although it is not required of a GA article, it would be nice if the sources were done using citation templates.
  • There is ALOT of issues with the prose. For example there are multiple instances of the prose stating her name as "Hammonds." Also many misspellings. "Here" used for "her." "Focusses." "Orienatal."
  • Many instances of incorrect tense as well. The article uses present tense to speak about past actions. "With this systems perspective Hammond searches for a syntheses between the Western and Orienatal health care."
  • ALOT of redlinks. If an article doesn't exist don't link to it.
  • Alot of unnecessary wikilinks as well. Does "lifestyle" really require a link?
  • The Sonoma State University category does not exist.

Those are the main issues with the article, and it seems like alot of work will be required, but it is certainly not beyond help. The scope of the article is good, and it seems relatively in-depth concerning Mrs. Hammond's career and accomplishments. So, the main issues with the article are style-based. I hope someone finds time to implement my suggestions above and renominate it soon. Good luck! Drewcifer3000 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. This gives some directions to work on. - Mdd 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Some things I fixed, but others need more time. One question I can answer: Does "lifestyle" really require a link? I've tried to reduce the number of links to a minimum, and I have tried to avoid linking terms twice. But I left some general links to "lifestyle", because it's in the nature of the article itselve. On some point Hammond talks about the most general structures. - Mdd 23:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a valid point. Just make sure that any articles you wikilink to actually discuss the topic in a way that is relevant to Mrs. Hammond. For instance, it is ok to link to lifestyle if it discusses it in a systems-science kind of way. If talks about the word in general, then it might not be appropriate. I'll leave decisions like that up to your judgement. Anyways, from what I can see you've already done some good work, so keep it up and let me know if you need any help or assistance! Drewcifer3000 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this feed back. The wikilinks you refer to are in my opinion part of a bigger problem you already stipulated. I think these are also the things, that take more time:
  1. Improving the context of the article. Now there are a lot of startings with "Hammonds did this", "Hammond did that". All the stories in this article don't al start with Hammond, but she is most of the time a player in the stories. More of these stories can be told.
  2. Writing about the existing red links: International Society for the Systems Sciences, Society for General Systems Research, Mental Health Research Institute and General Systems Yearbook. These are important issues in the history of systems thinking.
  3. Improving the presents of Debora Hammond's idea's and articles in the other systems related articles in Wikipedia, and in this article itselve, see also the first point here.
In a way developing this article is an experiment to write a (in the field of systems) more advances biographical article. I wonder though how far this article and its context has to proceed to recieve a good article status? I can keep working on the items metioned for a long time, before I satisfy these targets mentioned? Should these two, the GA status and the final version of the article, be related? - Mdd 12:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I think alot of work still needs to be done. That's not to say that this article isn't good - it's very informative and I actually learned quite a bit about Mrs. Hammond and her related studies - but it's just not a "Good Article" yet. The main issues to the article aren't content, they are form: grammar, spelling, style, etc. That said, if Systems Research/Science isn't very well covered at Wikipedia, I'm glad to see that you've started the ball rolling. If the topics you've mentioned are indeed important enough to have an article, then you're more than welcome to add them. But if those articles don't exist yet, there is no reason to link to them in this article until they do. (And, by the way, these articles wouldn't have to be as in depth or time-consuming as this article is) I know it's alot of work, but a Wikipedia editor's work is never done. I always feel like I'm behind, and I primarily do music-related articles, something which there are plenty of! Drewcifer3000 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Worksection removed[edit]

Due to possible violation of copyright, see WP:Copyvio, I have removed the worksection of this article for now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for all inconvenience I have caused here, see also here. If you would like to assist in improving this article, please let me know. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you.