User talk:KJoseph12

Attempting to find an article to edit for my History of Psychology class. KJoseph12 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Psychoanalytic theory. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Assignment 6: Peer Review

Hi Kellie, Below are my comments on your proposed article revisions. Overall, it looked like you had made a good start. However, I did notice that someone removed all of your changes, so I ended up using the 16:11, 26 March 2012 revision from the “Revision History” tab. I hope this was the correct version; it seemed like it was your most current draft. Anyway, I don't know too much about psychoanalytic theory, but I hope my comments will at least be of some help. Crossfire8228 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

General
1. Does the lead section provide a stand-alone concise summary of the article? See: Lead section and for an even more thorough treatment see: Guide to writing better articles.
Yes, the revised lead section offers a concise summary of the article. The original lead section appears to have been somewhat vague, and the suggested removals/changes are an improvement. However, it might be prudent to remove or condense the two remaining original sentences that open the article.
2. Does the contribution appear to be cut and pasted from an existing source without appropriate citation?
No, the new contributions do not appear to be cut and pasted without citation. For example, in the newly created section “The Beginnings” the sentences appear to be original, and there are two citations.
3. Is field-specific jargon avoided where possible and explained where necessary? I.e., is the general lay audience of an encyclopedia adequately kept in mind by the author and student-editor?
In general, the revisions do a good job of keeping the language simple, but there are some terms in the revised opening paragraph (specifically, the paragraph that was moved from the previously written “Influence of Lacan” section) that could be linked to their corresponding Wikipedia pages (e.g. free association, dream interpretation, psychological energy, anxiety, id, ego, superego, etc).
4. Are wikilinks, i.e., links to other Wikipedia articles, provided where appropriate?
Both of the newly created sections, “The Beginnings” and “Basic Ideas”, do a good job of including wikilinks. However, as mentioned in the previous question’s answer, there are some terms in the lead section that need links.
5. Does the contribution maintain a neutral point of view, consist of verifiable statements, and avoid becoming original research/opinion?
Yes, the contribution successfully avoids overstepping the scope of this article.
6. Are facts cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date, except those that are added to provide historical relevance to the article? Are additional references for further reading provided?
Yes, the sources appear to be relevant and up-to-date. The only issue in need of possible improvement might be the formatting of sources 3 and 4 which only list an external hyperlink and a few identifying words. Below the references, there is a “Further Reading” section which contains numerous links to related articles and a book.
7. Is the contribution clear; written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain clear prose; free of redundant language?
Yes, the contribution is reasonably clear of logical and language error.
8. Are the grammar, verb tenses, and spelling correct? Common mistake: multiple verb tenses throughout article. (Most of the topics of these articles describe past events, so use past tense consistently throughout. "The plaintiff argued...The defendant responded...The court decided..." NOT The Plaintif argues...The defendant responds...The court decides...")
There were a few grammar issues that caught my eye, but nothing serious (e.g. the use of the word “collaboration” in the first sentence of the section “Early Beginnings”, maybe the use of the word “was” instead of “were” in the last sentence in “Early Beginnings”, and some jumbled wording the first sentence of the section “Basic Ideas”).
9. Is the page categorized appropriately?
Yes, the page appears to be categorized appropriately.
10. In general, are the reasons why the article topic is notable made clear, providing enough detail on important aspects, without providing too much detail on minor points?
Yes, there are clear reasons why this article’s topic is notable. In looking over the outline available on KJoseph12’s user page, I am confident that this article will provide enough detail on psychoanalytic theory by the end of this class project. The only thing I can think to add might be a broad overview articulating how the psychoanalytic theory has influenced other major psychological theories over the years.
11. Are links provided to publicly-available versions of all primary sources, such as original articles? Are citations done properly?
Everything in the “Further Reading” section is linked. But the “References” section has a few minor errors. However, most of these look like they will become non-issues once the proposed deletions take effect.
12. Are references formatted properly? Here is one example of how a reference for a law source is formatted: Subsequent references to the same source then just need and see generally Referencing for beginners.
As mentioned in the previous question’s answer, there are a few errors in the “References” section, but again, I am hesitant to identify any specifics because of the large number of proposed deletions which would remove many of these references.
13. Is the "educational assignment" template included on the article's discussion page?
Yes, the “education assignment” banner is up on the article’s discussion page.

Specific
1. Cite-check every reference in the article. That means, look at each reference and confirm that it supports the point that the article cites it for.
The only references that are not encompassed by the proposed deletions are references 3 and 4. I followed both of these reference’s hyperlinks, and they both pertained to their relevant section. It appears that the rest of the listed references will be deleted once the corresponding paragraphs are removed.
2. Make sure that the citations are formatted in a consistent manner and that none of them are simply a bare URL.
References 3 and 4 need to be reformatted
3. Once you are familiar with the subject matter of the article, try to think of a relevant aspect of the topic that is not covered at all or not covered enough and add that need and the need for relevant sources as a comment to the Talk page of the article.
Done
4. If some aspect of the article could be better illustrated by adding an image (cc-licensed or public domain and available from Wikimedia Commons) then add that need and the need for suitable captions for the image as a comment to the Talk page of the article.
In my opinion, this article would not be significantly helped by the addition of an image.