NinaJo123

Feedback on your article

Hello NinaJo123, 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: good start, I would change the word order to "published by the Austrian, catholic sociologist Anton Orel (1881-1959)."
• Links: not good: Please look for keywords in your article and link them to other Wikipedia articles. Like: "Austrian"
• Headers: In general sufficient, besides "A critical assessment of Anton Orel's argumentation" which should be different as it is not neutral. Use "Reception" instead and try to describe all perspectives. In that section you can describe the accessment of the work based on sources.
• References: Use much more references: the common practise is to add a reference behind every paragraph, and behind every two or three sentences. Also please convert references like "(p. 123)" to inline references.
• Context/timeframe: I think there is more to be told about the context. Please try to find more information about it.
• How was the book received: Still missing.
• Other: No. References are besides good writing the most important part of Wikipedia articles. Without (sufficient) inline references, an article is not ready to be published.
• Ready to publish: No. Besides missing context and timeframe, mainly not ready because of missing references are besides good writing the most important part of Wikipedia articles. Without inline references, an article is not ready to be published.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before our coming meeting. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Today a new review of your article before the final session.

• Intro sentence: sufficient
• Links: sufficient
• Headers: sufficient
• Context/timeframe: sufficient
• How was the book received: sufficient
• References: Almost everywhere you used sufficient sources, besides the last sentence of the section Reception, as well as sentence "Alcohol is among the six leading causes of death in high-income countries.", as well as the last sentence of the section Alcoholism from the early 21st century perspective. Also: please add references behind the dot instead of before.
• Other: This is essayistic: "Though, the binge drinking issue should not be overexaggerated," please rephrase.
• Ready to publish: Not yet, please fix the last missing references and rephrase one sentence.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before/during our meeting today. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Der Alkoholismus: Einführung in ein soziales Problem moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Der Alkoholismus: Einführung in ein soziales Problem, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources proving not just that the book exists but that it is notable - right now the impact section seems to suggest this indirectly. Were there resources at the time that prove it was notable then? Scholars who have studied it now? I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)