User talk:Rio.bergh
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Rio.bergh, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Topic Choice
[edit]As we have already discussed through email, we are heading in the general direction of choosing a topic to expand the knowledge base on women in Psychology. Originally we had quite the list that included: Bluma Zeigarnik, Jane Loevinger, Marcia K. Johnson, Bärbel Inhelder, Mary Henle, Karen A. Matthews, and Lois Barclay Murphy. After the group members all looked at them via email we came to a conclusion. --Kristy.l.brandt (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The options we currently have on the table are: 1. Bluma Zeigarnik 2. Bärbel Inhelder 3. Lois Barclay Murphy Any thoughts on who would be best? Considerations could be what is currently on the page, and what resources might be available that concern the people mentioned. My thoughts for now — Bluma Zeigarnik sounds pretty interesting, but I don't know about how much information is available concerning her. It looks like there might be a memoir and a biography, judging by the current state of the wikipedia page.Rio.bergh (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that discussion through email. I also find Bluma Zeigarnik interesting. It seems that there isn't a lot of information readily available about her but I am going to do some more digging. There may be more available on the other two women.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juldie (talk • contribs) 03:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
With Bluma Zeigarnik, part of what makes her so interesting to me is the fact that she worked with psychopathology and experimental psychology. Bärbel Inhelder was a developmental psychologist and actually worked with Jean Piaget. It looked like her main area of research was the stage of "formal operations". This was the one that related to the transition between childhood and adolescence. This stage works the most with reasoning. Lois Barclay Murphy main focuses were child psychology; developmental psychology; experimenting with social psychology. I'd be totally fine with doing any of them, but the listed order that we have is what I would have ordered them in interest as well. --Kristy.l.brandt (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry guys getting on here a bit late. I do like the direction that all of this is going though. The first two don't have much information on their pages at all, and I could be mistaken but it didn't look like there was a wiki page at all for Lois Barclay Murphy. Though it does look like we should be able to get quite a bit of information for any of which we choose. I personally would like to start a page for our 3rd option, but I am up for better the other 2 pages as well. T.karels (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Murphy does look like a pretty interesting person — she wrote about 16 books and a ton of articles on child/developmental psychology. I found a newspaper article from 1989 written about her, and there is also some biographical information on http://www.feministvoices.com/lois-barclay-murphy/ which also has a few articles written about her and an autobiography in its reference section. They could serve as a good starting point for finding out about her, so I would be more than happy to start a page on her. What do the rest of you think about starting a page for Murphy? Or if you want to build a case for improving one of the other pages, please do. Rio.bergh (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I am fine with any of the three. I am most interested Bluma Zeigarnik primarily because there is an effect named after her that has not been proven in subsequent research and memory interests me more than developmental psychology. From what I can tell it will be easier to find sources to use on the other two. Available sources on Bluma Zeigarnik seem pretty sparse.Juldie (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with adding more to the Bluma Zeigarnik page. If it will be easier for us to get information on her, then maybe this would be our best route just so that we don't put ourselves into a position where we run out of material before we make a decent page. T.karels (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
In light of the apparent scarcity of information on Bluma Zeigarnik, I'm hesitant to choose her page as a topic. Just a thought, but perhaps we could all rank our choices in order of preference, and then arrive at an ordered list based on the total "score" for each person? My current ranking would be 1. Murphy 2. Inhelder 3. Zeigarnik Rio.bergh (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
My choices would be: 1. Zeigarnik, 2. Inhelder, 3. Murphy. I just don't have as much interest in developmental psychology so I kept looking for sources on Zeigarnik last night. Unfortunately, I am traveling today and don't have that list with me. I think we could flesh out quite a lot through bits on her in publications primarily about Gestalt Therapy and Lewin. One of the bigger barriers I see is that much of what I found is not in English.Juldie (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Your topic: Your choice - Zeigarnik or Murphy
[edit]Hello Group 11: I don't think Zeigarnik was on the page of Women psychologists, but I added her because I think she is a significant and interesting figure. However, it might be challenging to find enough information on her to generate a good article. I agree that Murphy will probably be easier to research. I will leave it up to you, since no other groups chose either topic. J.R. Council (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Feedback on lead sections
[edit]Tim, your lead looks to be ok to me, but I just wanted to mention that the newspaper source you used was already in our source list. Instead of recreating a source, you can hit the re-use button when citing to use sources we already have. That said, the citations for the section I just added are goofed up, so perhaps it's a code thing... I'm going to see if I can fix mine, anyway. Also, I was wondering if your lead might be a little bit heavy on Murphy's background/biography. It's stuff we'll want to look into, but I was wondering if the lead might be a more appropriate section for contributions/accomplishments as opposed to background that might be better in a biography section. Not for sure on that though. Rio.bergh (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Council, quick question for you: when I go into visual editing, the references and lists are correct in my lead section, but then when I save changes and view it in the sandbox, the references that should point to Johnston, E. (2012). Lois Barclay Murphy: A pioneer of positivity. In Wade E. Pickren, Donald A. Dewsbury & Michael Wertheimer (Eds.) Portraits of pioneers in developmental psychology (135-149). New York: Psychology Press. don't function correctly. Any idea why this is/how to fix it? Rio.bergh (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry this response is so late, Rio. I'm looking into it and will contact Ian if I can't figure it out. J.R. Council (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Rio, I think your lead looks good. It includes pertinent information while still being concise. You did a good job hitting the highlights with a good balance of information across the topics listed in our outline. You also did a good job with citations, links and editing. I am struggling with this.Juldie (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Juldie, as you already mentioned, the main thing for your lead is to add citations—the info is fine, it just needs to have the references along with it. Also, it seems a bit heavy on the biography. I guess when I think of a lead, I conceive of it as being pretty concise. But maybe that's just one of my indiosyncrasies. Rio.bergh (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
A page you started (Lois Barclay Murphy) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Lois Barclay Murphy, Rio.bergh!
Wikipedia editor Ramaksoud2000 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
To reply, leave a comment on Ramaksoud2000's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.