Maastricht Period3

A goat for you!

Goat any tips?

Bale jasmine (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for proofreading our work!

D

RosieJR (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback on your article

Hello! 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 sentence: okay, but in the first sentence we make the subject of the article bold.
• Links: sufficient
• Headers:
  • The whole purpose of links is that this makes it possible that we do not have to define all the connected topics as we can just link to it. This I mention as the section of About the Author is largely irrelevant for the article about the book. For example, how is the dead of the author in 1959 related to the book? It's not. A large part can be removed, the rest can be added to another section in the article.
  • You love to use capitals. Nouns in German are capitalised, in English they are normally not. For example "Early 20th Century Context" has two capitals too many.
  • I do not understand why there is a twice a summary section of the book: The section Content is intended as summary of the book, but the section above it is also a summary.
  • The header of Reception is not only intended to contain the reception shorty following after the book, but intended to contain everything that comes out of this book from publication till now. Therefore I do not understand why the section "Modern Influence" is completely separate.
• References: A good start, but more are needed. Every paragraph and every two/three sentences should have a reference. You can use a reference more than once. Without sufficient references an article can't be published.
• Context:
  • I am wondering why this header is so long: "Early 20th Century Context"? We would only write a header like this, when there is also another century context. So the header is too long or an important part of the contest is missing.
  • This section is intended to describe what did lead to the creation of the book. Reading this section you tried to describe the background, which is good and clear, but I miss a bridge how this leads to the book.
• How was the book received:
• Other: In the article I miss somehow the role of this book concerning the developments in the field of botany. They way how the book is described is as it is just a book. Please keep in mind: an article in Wikipedia is not a simple book summary that you might have used during your study career. Also I am not sure why the front cover of Origin of Species is used...
• Ready to publish: no, besides the multiple issues, the major issue is too many references are missing.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before our next meeting. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)