User talk:Lavendergrl66/sandbox

Problems with the Article:

1. A major problem with this article is a severe lack of information related to Hermann Rorschach's early, personal, and late life. Also, different applications of the Rorschach test are not discussed in the current Wikipedia article pertaining to Hermann Rorschach.

Two New Related Articles:

2. Schwarz, W. (1996). Hermann Rorschach, M.D.: His life and work. Rorschachiana, 21(1), 6-17. doi:10.1027/1192-5604.21.1.6

3. The Society for Personality Assessment. (1996). American Psychologist, 51(9), 975-976. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.975

Questions or Comments about the Article:

4. What would be a good way to break up the different sections of this article?

5. Should "death" be a section of this article, or should the end of his life be incorporated into another section? Emilyyyv 003 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 4

First of all, nice start, everyone! Lots of good ideas for improving this article. You should learn to do proper citations. See WP:CQR and the brochure Editing Wikipedia that I handed out in class for instructions. If you are editing in the sandbox using the visual editor, there is a drop down textbox that makes citations easy.

For Katelyn: I think you should separate life from career. Maybe start with Personal life, and move relevant info from Early Life and Career to that section. Then just have a Career section. As far as info about other persons, if they had to do with his personal life, put it in that section, as long as it's relevant. Likewise, people who influenced his career could go in career section.

For Emily: I would break up the article into Personal life and education, Career, and Contributions. Since he died young, I suppose his major contribution was the inkblot test. That can be described briefly and linked to the main article to the test. I think the Death section could be moved into Personal life, as a sub-section.

For Trista: I agree, the Google trivia belongs in the article on the inkblot, not Rorschach. And yes, editing the article to make it more readable is perfectly okay. In fact, that's exactly what you should be doing, along with the rest. And PLEASE remember to sign your contributions with the 4 ~s.

J.R. Council (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

Hi Group 9 -- you've made a good start on your article. I was worried that you might have a tough time coming up with material on Rorschach, but it looks like you've found several papers about his life and career. For future reference, there's already a big article on Rorschach's ink blot test. You can link to that rather than repeating that information in your article.

I like how you've started filling in the outline with details. That's a good way to write.

J.R. Council (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Assignment 6

Katelyn: Good start! Make sure to bold his name right away since that is the title of your article. Double check grammar, punctuation and other typos. The word "supposedly" could come across as opinionated. Maybe try something like "was intended to" that has a more neutral tone to it. Try to tag other wiki articles where you can. Try to make the last sentence sound more factual. Keep in mind you want it to read as an encyclopedia entry that is providing just enough info to get the point across to the reader but in a way where they will want to keep reading on. Make sure you are citing where necessary. Great job being concise!

Emily: Nice work! Try to have his name be first since that is the title of your article and keep it bold. Try to tag other wiki articles. I like the way you give a brief description of the ink blot test. I think that should definitely be kept. Remove the "/" between psychiatrist and psychologist. I liked the conciseness of your lead and the neutral tone. Make sure you are citing where necessary. Overall good job!

Trista:

For all: Great job! One of your leads describes him as a psychologist while the other says psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. Go back to your references and determine what is most appropriate. I would recommend going on to assignment 7 with Emily's lead as the basis and bring in pieces of Katelyn's. Try to take into consideration each others' recommendations. You have a really nice start here! Samantha.myhre (talk) 05:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7

Hello Group 9. You've done a good job filling in the outline, and revising the lead. This still needs a lot of development before it is ready to move to the main article. Bottom line is that you need to put the pieces together in proper order and rewrite so the article flows. Here are some specific suggestions:

1. Move the lead section to the top.

You did the internal link to klecksography wrong. I fixed it the first time. Just put the term inside double brackets.

take out the reference to Japan. It doesn't belong in the lead.

2. Rewrite the information currently under Outline in paragraph form, with headings and subheadings.

This should be rearranged with the topics in the following order: Personal life (subsections - birth, middle life, death). The other information should be arranged in the following sections: Academic career, major contributions, publications, legacy. (See the Editing Wikipedia articles on Psychology pamphet.)

3. Be careful to use your own words. Make sure that any exact quotes are in parentheses followed by a citation. J.R. Council (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 8 decision

Hello Group 9. This article has come a long way, but it is still not ready to move to Wikipedia main article space.

Proofread! There are a number of grammatical errors.
Organize! There is a lot of overlap between the Early Life and Career section and later sections titled, 'Education' and 'Career.'

Since these problems can be corrected, I am sending your article to Ian for his comments and recommendation.
J.R. Council (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Nice start, but it still needs some work, I think. I'm having a hard time figuring out precisely what you plan to add to the article. Make certain that you remove the signature lines before moving content into the main article. And don't forget to add wikilinks to other articles - anything the average reader might not be familiar with should be linked, as should people and places (beyond the most obvious).

I noticed that you repeated several sources. Please see this link for information on re-using references. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to publish!

This looks good, and you have my thumbs-up to publish! Please see the instructions on Blackboard following Assignment 9 on how move the article over to main space. Congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]