CalculatingHorse

Feedback on your article

Hello CalculatingHorse, 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 tutor 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: good!
• Links: okay
• Headers: You use too many sub-headers: under each header normally are minimal three paragraphs, before can be thought about a sub-header. (Also be aware, while in German nouns are written as capital, this should not in English, unless a name.)
• References: More references are needed. Every paragraph and every two/three sentences should have a reference.
• Context/timeframe: Animal psychology should not be described as a separate subject, but in relationship to the book.
• How was the book received:
• Ready to publish: far from ready... I was hoping by now I could give some feedback, but there is not much yet. In a later stage I can give you some additional feedback.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before your final version. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi CalculatingHorse, thank you for your message, hereby some further feedback:

• Intro sentence: missing!
• Links: missing!
• Headers: In the content section you should not have so many headers.
• References: missing!
• Context/timeframe: missing! Please remove "Historical" from the header as a context is always historical.
• Reception: good!
• Other: Please mention in your article also somehow that the book is part of the special collection of the university (with source for it).

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)