User talk:Marcelo.stegmann

Feedback on your article

Hello Marcelo.stegmann, Thank you for writing your article in your sandbox! I have read the article and would like to give some feedback to improve your article to Wikipedia standards and customs. While your teacher will judge it content wise, I will look if it meets the quality standards we have on Wikipedia. I standard look for a series of subjects that need improvement or are okay.

• Intro sentence: perfect!
• Links: for now a good start
• Headers: good
• References: the article is still short, but so far it is good.
• Context/timeframe: I assume this is the start of this section, then I am looking forward for the rest.
• How was the book received: still missing

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marcelo.stegmann, Let me have a look again at your article.

• Intro sentence: perfect!
• Links: good!
• Headers: okay, but I am confused by the header "Historical Framework", I suggest that a different wording would be good. (PS: the F of Framework does not need capitalisation.)
• References: good! :-)))
• Context/timeframe: This part gives a very good insight in the historical development of insanity over time. What I miss in this part is what the historial background was for Bernard Hart himself to write this book. In order words: he did not woke up at some day and wrote the book. Thus I would also like to read about the steps that did lead towards the writing of the book, and how his work led to the book.
• How was the book received: Also in this part I am happy with the general perspective that this part has. At the same time I miss a bit what the publication of this book meant for Hart himself and what happened in his life as result of the publication. Perhaps also other publications of him that build on this book. Also perhaps also how other psychiatrists build upon the book in their work/publications, etc.

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marcelo.stegmann, Thank you for your message on my talk page. Sorry for the delay, there were some things that claimed my full attention. I just read your article and this I notice:

• Context: The part under Historical development of insanity misses a bridge towards the book. It feels like between what is described and the publication of the book, something is missing. What you describe under this header is a timeline from BCE to just before the publication of the book, while it should be from BCE to the publication of the book. So the last piece is missing, which can be just one sentence.
• Reception: First I think the two paragraphs are in the wrong order: the second one should go first I think. The first paragraph (about what he did/published afterwards) seems okay, but the second one seems a bit too brief to me. Is there nothing more that can be said about how it was used, or how it influenced the subject field, etc?

I hope you can use these comments to improve your article. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)