VLord89

Please leave me comments with your signature , Thank you VLord89 (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

link for you to look at for the project

I'm not sure what the link is for. Additionally, I can't seem to access the resource it points to (either the link is broken, or I don't have sufficient access at ebsco). Could you give me a doi or a title+journal name+author?Smallman12q (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop by the Teahouse anytime for a cup of tea, or some help with editing!

Hello! VLord89, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderlic test

Hello Vlord89. User:Nathan2055 was editing Wonderlic Test in response to a request made to the Guild of Copy Editors (GOCE) by User:Mdwilliams2 for a copy edit of the article. Such requests are made on this page. I am writing to you in my role as a coordinator of the GOCE.

Nathan2055 deleted a section because he considered it too promotional. I am allowing your restoration because I see that you are working intensively on the article, and we don't want to disrupt your work. For this reason, I am also deleting the request on the GOCE requests page, because copy editing means prose improvement, and there's no point editing the prose until the content is stable. You mentioned that English is not your native language. Please don't worry about that. You can make a new request for copy editing after your work on the article content is complete.

There is definitely some promotional material in the article as you currently have it. For example, you say that the test was "quickly accepted as a valid personnel test within a decade" and cite this to wonderlic.com. Their web site is a primary source, obviously. Where there are no other sources, you can use it for simple facts (such as Wonderlic's date of birth), but definitely not for value judgements about the test. That is clearly promotional. I understand, in fact, that its validity is comewhat controversial (?)

The citations in the "Types of Wonderlic Tests" section, where you have inline links to the company's web site, is very poor. I trust you plan to replace these with proper references, citing secondary sources?

If you need assistance with any Wikipedia aspects of your project, please don't hesitate to visit my talk page. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put some suggestions about managing wikilinks in the article at User talk:Mdwilliams2#Talkback. --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for causing the too-early heading to copyediting; I had not realized quite how much apparently needs altering, which I should have done during the peer review - I had also not expected the article to get picked up quite so quickly, given the several-month backlog at GOCE/REQ (I'm currently editing one listed in January 2012). (I have now learned to always take a close look at the references when doing a peer review... I am discovering that I prefer to do a combined peer review and full copyedit, as I've done with the various Croatian articles, the astatine article, etc.) Once the article is stable and relisted at GOCE/REQ, I'll take it on at the next available opportunity, unless Nathan2055 wishes to do so. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We're all learning stuff here, aren't we! I like the idea of combining PR and CE. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program Student Survey

Hi! Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey about the Wikipedia Education Program. This is our opportunity to improve the program and resources we provide students, so your feedback and input is integral to our future success. Thank you so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)