Yjeffrey7

Welcome!

Hello, Yjeffrey7, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wow

That's quite the edit. Thanks for your contribution. –xeno^talk 19:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Let me know if you have any suggestions that I could do to further improve it if necessary! Yjeffrey7 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I added a few links (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking). Probably the theorists should all be linked at least on their first mention. Are you okay with the new subheaders under History? –xeno^talk 20:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I think your links are great. I also agree that the theorists should all be linked at least on their first mention. Good idea. The new subheaders under history look good too: they are much more concise. Thanks! Yjeffrey7 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added more links. Is Constructivism (philosophy of education) an appropriate target for the term "Cognitive constructivism"? –xeno^talk 17:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for adding in links! I think Constructivism (philosophy of education) would be better for the term "Constructivism" as this page is more comprehensive and discusses constructivism in general. As for the term "Cognitive constructivism" it would probably deserve its own link to a "Cognitive Constructivism" page which doesn't seem to exist right now. Hope this helps! Yjeffrey7 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Have you thought about trying to shepherd the article through Wikipedia's article improvement process? For example, you could look at the criteria for a "Wikipedia:Good articles". There are a number of polished psychology articles that you could look at for examples: Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Psychology and psychologists (though none on a wide field like this, might be tough!). Let me know if you have questions about this. –xeno^talk 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know about this! It would be great to try to further improve this page. It would, however, be more challenging for such a wide topic such as the Psychology of Learning. Thanks for the information though. I'll definitely look into this! Yjeffrey7 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work on the article. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to post to my talk page at User talk:Xeno. All the best, –xeno^talk 13:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work at Psychology of learning, I award you the original barnstar. Thanks for being bold and helping the 50,000 annual readers of that page find more and better information! Wug·a·po·des​ 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK

Hey, just giving you a head's up that the page doesn't qualify for DYK at this point in time since the page wasn't expanded to five times its original length. It was doubled, but not expanded enough. It's kind of frustrating in this situation since you did give it such a massive overhaul. I'd normally close these out, but I'm going to leave it open in the hopes that maybe the massive overhaul could be considered effectively making this a new page. I don't think that would work, but it's worth a chance.

The best option here would be to take this through the Good Article process as suggested by Xeno, since passing that would qualify it for DYK. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's a bummer but thanks for notifying me. If it doesn't work, I'll see if I can take this through the Good Article process and then try DYK again. Thanks Yjeffrey7 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cognitive constructivism might make for a good DYK topic, there were also red-linked theorists in your article if you’re interested in biographies. –xeno^talk 19:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)