Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2019 September 13
| Help desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < September 12 | << Aug | September | Oct >> | September 14 > |
| Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages. |
September 13
[edit]00:42:07, 13 September 2019 review of submission by Nitrous1200
[edit]- Nitrous1200 (talk · contribs)
Found a few more references and cited them. Nitrous1200 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Nitrous1200 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
08:10:33, 13 September 2019 review of submission by Tleclair96
[edit]- Tleclair96 (talk · contribs)
Hi! I’m having trouble understanding why my article draft on Action Teaching is being rejected. A lot of the sources rely on extensive outside peer review (e.g., Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Monitor on Psychology - American Psychological Association’s monthly magazine) and have high visibility in terms of page views and people who know about or participate in action teaching activities (e.g. ActionTeaching.org, Socialpsychology.org) — is that not notable? I can provide data if that would be helpful. Additionally, action teaching has been funded by the National Science Foundation. The latter websites and articles by or tied to Scott Plous are primary sources, but the journals and APA, the BBC and NPR articles, are they not sufficiently reliable? He may have coined the term, but its use has grown beyond him and his creations. Thanks for your help in advance!
Tleclair96 (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I also wanted to add that the first Wikipedia review didn't question that the term action teaching is used widely, it just wanted reliable secondary sources -- which I seemingly provided. Additionally, Google searches of action teaching without quotes (so, action teaching in comparison to "action teaching") turns up a number of irrelevant results since the terms "action" and "teaching" are so common. If the search is done with quotes, it does yield a number of results, for example: http://www.teachpsych.org/E-xcellence-in-Teaching-Blog/4394183/ https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/54497/ https://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/265/html https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/about/editorialPolicies - See Action Teaching Reports
So, is it a matter of digging up these kinds of mentions of action teaching? These are already housed within the ActionTeaching.org links included in the draft, if you simply visit the pages. Should I be extracting these for the draft to be published, and if so how many are required, or when would I know to stop? The reason so many of these examples of action teaching are found on ActionTeaching.org is because the website's function is to act as a repository for action teaching resources. The material submitted, however, is from outside sources.
Tleclair96 (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
review of submission by K.Pilla313
[edit]- K.Pilla313 (talk · contribs)
K.Pilla313 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @K.Pilla313: - please clarify what you are asking for us. The reviewer was correct to reject the draft due to lack of content and reliable/independent secondary sourcing. If you were asking something else please let us know, or alternatively you can get help on other topics at the TEAHOUSE. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)