Talk:Mary Henle

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image(s) be included in this article to improve its quality.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Untitled[edit]

For Brooke: Yes. You can certainly use the same sources as the German page. Regarding Henle's publications, you don't need to go into detail, but you could list some of the major ones. You should certainly summarize her work, but her personal background is also important. J.R. Council (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Logan: I agree Google translate has problems, but it could give you a start. It would certainly be okay to include the German references in the English article you develop. Regarding her contributions, just a summary of her main contributions with reference citations would be fine. You should also have a section on her personal background. The handout on writing Wikipedia articles on psychology has a section on writing about psychologists with a suggested outline. J.R. Council (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Josh: I think you can take the German article as a beginning. However, she had a long career in the US, so there will be plenty of material in English. Check www.feministvoices.com/mary-henle/ J.R. Council (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5[edit]

First, some general comments. You've done a nice job of organizing your tasks and finding material! As you are developing your article, be sure to properly format your article for Wikipedia. You will need to do this eventually, and might as well start now.

Good luck with trying to translate the German article. I hope running it through Google translate works. If not, I can help you find more material.

Comments on specific sections:

To-do list: Looks good. Appropriate level of detail for now - you'll be adding more. Some of this material belongs in the outline.
1. For articles on people, an infobox and picture are really nice additions. For instructions on illustrating Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia Resources page on Blackboard. For infobox, type help:infobox into the Wikipedia search box.
Outline: I meant for groups to do a proper outline, like this:

I. Main topic

A. Subtopic

1. Sub-sub topic,etc.

You've kind of done this. As you are developing your article, it would really help to use a traditional outline format for organization.

References: Some of the reference citations are not formatted properly for Wikipedia. (Some are.) As you add text later, be sure to use the drop-down menu to attach reference citations in appropriate places and format references properly.
Task commitments: I can't see that you've done this, but you should. Please consolidate who's doing what in a separate section. J.R. Council (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6[edit]

Nice work, group! I agree with Brooke's critique that all the leads are good and you should combine them. Overall, I think Brooke's lead is the best to start from. You can add additional information from Logan's and Josh's leads. Something you should change is the order in which information is presented. After the first sentence in which you give her name, date of birth, and profession, you should establish why she is "notable." If she is worth writing about, say it up front. J.R. Council (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7[edit]

Good job combining leads, Group 16, but you did not deal with the order of information issue I noted in my comments on Assignment 6, above. Please do this before you go on to develop the main article. The first thing to do in a lead is establish why a subject is notable. So once you do this, please proceed to the next phase for Assignment 8.

Of course, it is fine to write the main article more in chronological order, as you've done in the current lead.
I fixed a couple of typos myself, but you need to proofread carefully.
Be sure to add reference citations to the lead, as well as internal links.

J.R. Council (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8[edit]

Hi Group 16. I will be reading this in detail when I get a chance this weekend. I've taken a quick look so I can give you some feedback before I leave today. Overall, looks great. I'd say you are just about ready to go. I don't think that much additional work is needed. If you want to work on it before you hear back from me, just proofread and polish it up.J.R. Council (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main things you need to do is proofread. For example, the first sentence is: "Mary Henle was American psychologist born on July 14, 1913." That should be "was AN". The next two sentences also have errors. The rest of the lead is good but contains too much detail. Focus on what made her notable and leave details about early life and education for the main text of the article. Comments on specific sections follow:
Schooling and Life: The second paragraph is a bit sloppy and informally written. Clean this up.
Works: Here is another bad sentence: "Henle was an addition to their own research life striving to make the Gestalt theory of the Berlin school (Wertheimer, Köhler, Koffka et al) in their authentic basic positions in the United States known to represent and defend their view falsifying interpretations:" Rewrite.

Above, I've given just a few examples of poor writing. There are many more in this article. You really need to proofread carefully before this is ready to publish to the article main space. The other big problem is that you have not put any reference citations in the text. Every statement of fact in a Wikipedia article needs to be backed up with a reference.
Overall, the content of this article is good and complete. Just work on cleaning it up and adding references and it will be ready to go. J.R. Council (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from the history that you've been working on this. This is much, much better! I'm sending the link to Ian for his comments. J.R. Council (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Nice work on your draft article. I made a few formatting fixes, but beyond that, they main thing that's missing is citations. The Schooling and life section, for example, only has one reference at the end. I'm assuming that it's all based on the one source, but given that Wikipedia articles will continue to develop after you post them, you can't assume that no one else will add anything. Consequently, you should have at least one reference at the end of every paragraph. Otherwise the connection with the source can get lost.

I would also recommend that you add {{Infobox scientist}} or {{Infobox person}} to the article. Click through the link for information on how to add them to the article. Even if you only fill in a few of the parameters in the table, you will get a nice little infobox that makes the article look more polished. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]