Jump to content

User talk:Cpoppke/sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, you've got a start[edit]

  • To do list is good
  • make a proper outline
  • start ref section
  • be sure to sign so you get credit for your work.J.R. Council (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work on what has already been started, rather than starting new sections. J.R. Council (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 6[edit]

It is kind of hard to follow who has done what. I'm not sure you guys were signing your contributions. I don't think David contributed to the to-do list. No one signed the reference list, but you should have more than one ref. No one seems to have made a commitment to work on specific sections. However, it seems to be a good start.

  • there is a book by James Capshew titled "Psychologists on the March" that has some good material on SPSSI. You can get it through Inter Library Loan. J.R. Council (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conner's questions[edit]

Would it be acceptable to cite the SPSSI's website for our Wikipedia article? I know Wikipedia doesn't like to use primary sources, but I thought I would ask anyways. Also, how heavy should we go into detail on the SPSSI's involvement and briefings for the Brown vs Board case? It is an extremely important case, but I was wondering how knitty gritty we should get into it, how fine of detail we should have from the case.

  • It would be very appropriate to put an external link to the SPSSI website. Best to use actual publications though. Regarding the Brown vs. Board of Ed. case - remember, this is not a term paper. Just give the essential details. Enough background to indicate the significance of the case, and then focus on SPSSI's role. J.R. Council (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla's questions[edit]

Would looking at other studies (like my second article) performed by members or presidents of the club be something to note or list on the wiki page? Or should that just be kept to the individual psychologist's page?

  • I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think you can certainly note contributions by members of the Society (not club), as long as they relate to SPSSI iteself.J.R. Council (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List[edit]

  • Add more background information. Either on different subjects, or elaborate on what is already there Cpoppke (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add information about their publications, such as their journals and Books. We should probably add hyperlinks to each of them within their respective place.Cpoppke (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a section for noteable psychologists that have been a part of SPSSICpoppke (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a section for notable projects/cases that the SPSSI has been involved inCpoppke (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: To do list will be updated with more specific tasks as they arise. KmdS2015 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add links to articles for presidents Positivity777 (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Items moved from Sandbox[edit]

Conner[edit]


  1. One item that I see as a problem or issue with our article is that the notable psychologists that were a part or founded the organization are not listed or mentioned in the article.
  2. References:

Article 1
Article 2

  • This assignment called for actually listing articles. I'm surprised you didn't do this. J.R. Council (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Dr. Council: Would it be acceptable to cite the SPSSI's website for our Wikipedia article? I know Wikipedia doesn't like to use primary sources, but I thought I would ask anyways. Also, how heavy should we go into detail on the SPSSI's involvement and briefings for the Brown vs Board case? It is an extremely important case, but I was wondering how knitty gritty we should get into it, how fine of detail we should have from the case. Cpoppke (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Kayla[edit]


  1. The first thing I noticed right away was the grammatical issues. For this to be a public page, the grammar should be correct. After that, the history of SPSSI is minimal and could really be more informational. The wiki page states how they publish journals- having links to those articles would be beneficial for those looking into SPSSI.
  2. Mednick, M. (2011) Looking Again at SPSSI: History, Activism, and Advocacy. Journal of Social Issues "67"(1). 8-11.
    I like this article because it points us in the direction of members and former presidents of SPSSI in which we could investigate. It also provides a good general overview of their history and mentions other areas in which we could look at their involvement around the time.
    Garret, H. E. (1962) The SPSSI and Racial Differences. "American Psychologist" 17(5). 260-263.
    This article goes into details of a racial study a member presented at a SPSSI meeting. Not only does it show a good (moving forward) side of SPSSI, but it also describes what psychological studies they were performing
  3. Dr. Council- Would looking at other studies (like my second article) performed by members or presidents of the club be something to note or list on the wiki page? Or should that just be kept to the individual psychologist's page?


KmdS2015 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hey friends- I'm struggling to get formatting done. I've even gone into beta and turned on the visual editor and it's not working. So, I may need some assistance on all of the fun "making it look pretty" things! ALSO! Not sure if you've seen this but there is an interactive timeline on the SPSSI webpage. Pretty neat and has a lot of detail. http://www.spssitimeline.org/timeline/1930s <----- beginning of the timeline KmdS2015 (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David[edit]


  1. (1) An issue I saw with the current stub article is that, as the two of you pointed out, there is virtually nothing on the history or founding members of the SPSSI.
  2. (2) Nicolson, I. (1997) The Politics of Scientific Social Reform, 1936-1960: Goodwin Watson and The Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 33(1). 39-60. This article gives a good summary of the society's early history. Pettit, M. (2011) The SPSSI Task Force on Sexual Orientation, the Nature of Sex and the Contours of Activist Science. "Journal of Social Issues" 67(1). 92-105. This one could be a good source for current issues addressed by the organization.
  3. (3) Journal articles are acceptable if they are a review rather than original research correct? Also, of the few potential sources I've looked at, many seem opinionated (though considering the deal with social issues it shouldn't be surprising) so balance might be something we need to be mindful of while writing this.

Positivity777 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Side tab to include:

  • Society Logo
  • Founding Year
  • Current President
  • Number of current members
  • link to SPSSI website

Positivity777 (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KmdS2015 (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work Load Divide[edit]

Conner: Publications & Awards for SPSSI
David: Historical Timeline
Kayla: Summary, Mission Statement & Membership Information
KmdS2015 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4] Positivity777 (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nicolson, Ian (1997). "The Politics of Scientific Social Reform, 1936-1960: Goodwin Watson and The Society for Psychological Study of Social Issues". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 33 (1): 39-60. ISSN 0022-5061. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  2. ^ Bullock, Heather; Lott, Bernice; Truong, Shirley (2011). "SPSSI and Poverty: Reflections at Seventy-Five". Journal of Social Issues. 67 (1): 150--164. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01689.x. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  3. ^ Kimmel, Paul (2011). "SPSSI and Peace-Building: A Participant's Perspective". Journal of Social Issues,. 67 (1): 122--136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01687.x. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  4. ^ Cherry, Frances (2001). "SPSSI and Activist Science". Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy. 1 (1): 191–194. doi:10.1111/1530-2415.00013. ISSN 1529-7489. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

J.R. Council (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Category:American Psychological Association Category:Organizations based in Washington, D.C. Category:Organizations established in 1936 Category:Psychology-related professional associations

Scoring example[edit]

What I see indicates that David added 1 reference to the Talk page, which is worth one point. J.R. Council (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7[edit]

Nice start! After you guys add more content and clean up the writing and formatting, this will be ready to go. It looks like a lot of this has been copied in from SPSSI website. Make sure that you don't commit plagiarism. Paraphrase and cite sources.

Here are some specific comments:

  1. Use subheadings rather than bullet points for Organization, membership, etc.
  2. History section is where the most content should be added. Fill in details on founding, important members. Can give details on Brown vs. BOE, work in WWII, poverty, etc. - some of the best-known projects.
  3. I like that you've added links for awards and publications. The formatting should be consistent with other Wikipedia articles. No colored fonts, standard size font, etc.
  4. Fill in details on Journals.
  5. Another good source on SPSSI is Psychologists on the March, by James Capshew. You¹ll need to get this from Inter Library Loan.

J.R. Council (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work[edit]

This article is coming along well, but still needs work. I can see where David has added in new material since my last comments, but no one else has done anything. Please follow up on my last comments. Some more specific suggestions:

  1. Proofread carefully. Make this something you are proud to submit.
  2. Work on the intro paragraph. This is the most important piece. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
  3. When you list members, say what they've done that relates to the mission of SPSSI. The Likert entry doesn't do this at all.
  4. Relate the Clark section to the desegregation section.
  5. In general, fill in details.

J.R. Council (talk) 05:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Connor?[edit]

I can't see that Connor has done anything for Assignment 8.J.R. Council (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close[edit]

Just a few changes needed before I send your link to Ian.

  1. You have a pretty good introductory paragraph. This section is not titled, so take the section title down.
  2. Either fill in section on Member Demographics, or delete.
  3. Beware of plagiarism. Some of this sounds like it has been pasted in from the SPSSI website. Be sure to use your own words. I will be checking, and if I find plagiarism, I will apply appropriate sanctions. In this regard, if you are taking information from the SPSSI website, be sure to include this in references. I don't see anything.

I have added the correct references for the awards that I have elaborated on in detail for the SPSSI. If these citations are correct I shall continue to use them when adding on to the remainder of the awards and the journals SPSSI publishes. Cpoppke (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Make sure you back up statements with references. For example, these statements are not backed up with citations:
Government Service During World War II
Many of the founding psychologists of the SPSSI including served in United States government offices during World War ::II. Through both their positions and connections with the SPSSI these individuals --Positivity777 (talk) 04:16, 13 ::April 2015 (UTC)
Desegregation
In the United States Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, SPSSI members presented research and served as ::expert witnesses to testify against racial segregation.[3] --Positivity777 (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

These fixes are not difficult. Please make them and let me know so I can email link to Ian. J.R. Council (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending link to Ian[edit]

Keep working on this, but I think it's ready for Ian to take a look. I did some minor edits to the sandbox. J.R. Council (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

@Cpoppke, KmdS2015, and Positivity777: Nice start on a tricky topic. Writing about professional societies is difficult, which probably explains why so many articles about them are in bad shape. The key issue here is that, when you're writing about a society like this one, you need to be careful to avoid sounding promotional. Right now, this reads a bit like an advertisement for the society.

On an article like this, you need to start by asking "why is this group important"? As far as I can tell (from this article) it's important because

  • It's an influential society with a long history
  • It publishes several journals
  • It "played a key role in the preparation of social science briefs in Brown v. Board of Education"

If this is what is important, this is what the article should focus on.

  • The History section is important, and it's probably the place to start. The first section after the lead should discuss the history of the society.
    • The Important members section would be better if it was structured as a single section, maybe a paragraph on each one. Try to include sources that time them to the society somewhat. And make sure everything is sourced (the section on Likert, for example, lacks sources).
    • The government service in WW II and the desegregation issues look really interesting. This is an area that could use some fleshing out - after all, it's probably one of the more important parts.
  • The next section should take a view of the society as it stands today. Why would people care about it, what's it doing that's important?
    • The membership section should be a subsection of this. It needs to be trimmed back a lot - an encyclopaedia article about the society shouldn't include the costs of membership or the discounts members earn. It's difficult to maintain, and it borders on trivia. In short, trim this, preferably down to a single section. Get rid of the bullet points. Make sure it doesn't sound like something the society might include in a brochure about membership. And don't forget that everything needs supporting citations.

It might be helpful to take a quick look at the Featured Articles about organizations, just for a few hints as to what an article like this might ideally look like: Seacology, Royal National College for the Blind and Gray's Inn, and for something a bit more similar, some Good Articles: Royal Society and Public Relations Society of America.

The article also needs some general clean-up. Section headers shouldn't be capitalized (except for the first word and proper nouns). The signatures need to be removed. And the empty sections should either be filled or removed. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is good feedback. Probably sounds like more work than it actually will be. This is worth doing. If you need to go a bit past the Monday deadline, that's okay. Just let me know. J.R. Council (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you're starting to make changes according to Ian's suggestions. Keep it up! J.R. Council (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, after you make these changes, I'll give you the okay to move this to the article main space. Email me when you're done. J.R. Council (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! SPSSI article published[edit]

Nice job on this, group!J.R. Council (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cpoppke/sandbox&oldid=661901188"