User talk:Ktboe1/sandbox

Assignment #3: Topic Ideas

There were a few ideas I have in mind for our Wiki page. Mikaila had mentioned in class that we could do our project on Peter Pan disorder. I find this to be a unique and interesting topic to research. The only con that I can come up with for this topic is that there might not be an abundant amount of research done on this topic. Would it be more beneficial to do a woman that has contributed to the field of Psychology similar to what we discussed in class? Eneida and Mikaila, if either of you have any other ideas for a topic, please feel free to discuss on this "talk" page. Ktboe1 (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Peter Pan syndrome also known as "per aeternus" would be a very interesting topic. When I search "per aeternus" there is quite a bit of information compared to the Peter Pan syndrome. Katie I think a woman that has contributed to Psychology would be a a great idea also. Does anyone have anyone in mind that they are interested in? Eneidavilella (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I looked up "per aeternus" and found quite a bit more information that we could use! If Mikaila is on board, we should do this for a topic. For our second choice we could do a female psychologist contributor! Ktboe1 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is a good plan and if we cannot find more information on Peter Pan Syndrome then we could always go with a different topic. I am down for what ever would be easiest to get information on.Mvw02 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have to choose a second topic in case someone else has our choice, we could do Barbel Inhelder. She was a developmental psychologist that worked alongside Jean Piaget. She might be someone of interest if we aren't able to do the Peter Pan one! How does that sound? Ktboe1 (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, I think that Barbel Inhelder would be a perfect second choice for us! There is lots of information on her and she seems like a very interesting woman to research. So it looks like Choice 1: "Per aeternurs" aka Peter Pan Syndrome and Choice 2: Barbel Inhelder. Eneidavilella (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic: Barbel Inhelder

Hello Group 4: I know that your first choice was puer aeternus / Peter Pan syndrome. However, I looked at the puer aeternus article and it is already well developed. Peter Pan syndrome is a subtopic of the main article. Barbel Inhelder is a much better choice because the article is just a stub at present and you can find a lot of good material on her. I'm over-ruling puer aeternus because it would be really tough to add significantly to what is already there. J.R. Council (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment #4: Information on Topic

Mikaila

There should be plenty of information. A good place to start is with the two references you list above. J.R. Council (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eneida

Just pull it out. Your article should focus on Inhelder, and link to the Wikipedia article on Piaget. J.R. Council (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie

I think this is a great project. Glad you agree. J.R. Council (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment #5

Content on User page

Assignment #6

Katie: Lead

Comments

I like the addition of her cause of death and how we still see her work in developmental psychology today Eneidavilella (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the ideas you came up with! I think what you put will be a good add on. Mvw02 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaila: Lead

Comments

I like the addition of more of her publications Eneidavilella (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with Eneida, I like the addition of her publications. I think this is a great layout of all her major contributions to developmental psychology. Ktboe1 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikaila's lead is good, but including the list of publications is really too much specific detail for a lead. J.R. Council (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eneida: Lead

Comments

I like that you included how many books and articles she contributed to during her research of developmental psychology. I also like how you mentioned that she didn't show interest in experimental psychology at a young age. Ktboe1 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC) <be/> I really liked how you added dates to the work she has done and also bringing awareness to the fact of how much she has accomplishedMvw02 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good lead, but too much specific detail. Details including dates will go in the text of the article.

Nice job, group!

Very good work. It will not be hard to put together a good single lead for Assignment 7. Just stick to the main points and remember later to put the details in the main text of the article. J.R. Council (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment #7: Lead Section

Dr. Council's comments on combined lead:
Nice job! I made one edit on a clumsy sentence. Also, you need to include reference citations to make this lead acceptable for Wikipedia.

Only Katie signed this, so I need to know that the rest of the group contributed.

Other than that, you are good to go with developing the rest of your article. Please do this in Katie's user page sandbox - not User talk sandbox, where it is now - so I can find it next time! J.R. Council (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

@Ktboe1, Mvw02, and Eneidavilella: Nice start on your draft. A few things moving forward

Your tone is too informal for an encyclopedia article. For example

Her dad was Swedish, working as a zoologist and her mom was German, working as a writer.

Terms like "dad" and "mom" aren't used in formal writing. There's also some inconsistency in tense: "was Swedish, working as a zoologist". Something like

Her Swedish-born father was a zoologist and her German-born mother was a writer.

is a little more concise, and a little more formal in tone.

This has a few problems too

As a student of Piaget, Inhelder was able to carry out an experiment on children’s perceptions of quantity conservation, later to become her first publication.

When you say "as a student of Piaget" people often mean "student" in the sense of a broad intellectual school. When you're referring to an actual student, in a case like this, you'd say "while a student of Piaget's" or "while she was a Piaget's student". The final bit, "later to become her first publication" is a bit of a sentence fragment. "Was able to" is also kinda passive. Something like this would be better

While she was Piaget's student [or; While working with Piaget], Inhelder carried out an experiment on children’s perceptions of quantity conservation which led to her first publication.

Make sure that everything in the article is directly tied to the supporting source. If you used a source, it should be directly connected with the statements it supports. If you didn't use it, you shouldn't link it. In addition, you shouldn't have anything in a paragraph after the final citation - since it isn't clear where that statement came from, it's effectively unsourced.

References go after punctuation, not before. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment #8: Response to Feedback

In response to our feedback that was given on our article on Barbel Inhelder we have made some revisions to our article. These revisions include:

Removing references not directly cited
Changed informal language to formal language
Made changes recommended by Ian in regard to language that is used
Shortened article to make it more concise and less repetitive
Blended the voice of each writer to make it blend together
Formatted citations

Ktboe1 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]