User talk:Hannefj

Welcome[edit]

Greetings...

Hello, Hannefj, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography assignment[edit]

Hi, here are the details of the MRR annotated bibliography assignment...

Good Wikipedia articles are built on a foundation of good sources. In this respect, Wikipedia articles are not much different from academic essays. In fact, if anything a good Wikipedia article is more reliant on good sources than are other academic or scholarly texts. The whole notion of verifiability, which is the first of the encyclopedia's five pillars, depends upon reliable sources.

The aim of this bibliography assignment, then, is to identify, read, and comment on the most important and reliable sources that relate to the topic of your chosen article.

In coordination with your group, you need to do the following:

Identify the most important sources for your topic. These will be both books and articles. They will vary depending upon the kind of topic you have chosen, but to give a couple of examples this book is a key one for the general topic of magic realism, while this biography would be essential for the article on Gabriel García Márquez.
Use databases and the Koerner library catalogue to identify these sources. Look for as many as possible in the first instance; you will later choose between them. On the whole, they will not be online sources (though of course many articles are now available online thanks to JSTOR and other services).
Aim to come up with a long list of, say, 5-20 books and perhaps 15-40 articles. Obviously, for some topics there will be more material than for others. So for some topics you will need to do more searching; for other topics, you will need to be more careful and discerning as you choose between sources. Look far and wide and be inventive in thinking about good sources.
In some cases, the article may already have a number of references, either in the article itself, or perhaps somewhere in its talkpage archives. You should take account of these, but you should still undertake your own search, not least to find new material that has not been considered before.
To figure out what you need, you will also have to look at your article and consider what it is missing, what needs to be improved, where it could do with better sources, etc. In other words, you will have to start planning how you are going to work on and rewrite the article.
Come up with a final short list of c. 2-4 books and perhaps 6-24 articles.
Put the long list (of all the sources you have found) as well as the short list (of the sources you have decided are the most important) on your article's talk page by Wednesday, January 20.
Distribute the sources among the members of your group. Each person should be reading the equivalent of one full book or six articles. Exceptionally long books may be divided up between group members.
Read the sources, bearing in mind the information that is going to be useful as you work on the article. Think about what it covers and take a note of particular page numbers.
Produce an annotated bibliography of the sources you have read. This will consist of a summary or précis of the most important aspects of the texts, which should be at least 150 words long for each article read; 600 words for each book. You should put this on your user page by Monday, February 8.

To coordinate with the other members of your group (whose names you can find here), use their talk pages. Each time that you log in to Wikipedia, you will notice that if you have a message waiting for you, there will be a yellow banner at the top of the page.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hanne!

Make sure you check our article's talk page. I've started our bibliography, but we have to add a hefty amount of books and articles before Jan. 20th. --Katie322 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Realism Reconsidered[edit]

I'm looking forward to working with your class during the semester - if you have any questions about the project or Wikipedia in general, please feel free to leave me a note at User talk:Awadewit. Wikipedians are here to help you! Awadewit (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about bibliography[edit]

Hey Hanne! I started our official bibliography on the Alejo Carpentier talk page. The sources are in alphabetical order for easy reference and I added a description of how the source might best help our article (ie: sections like 'music', 'style', etc...) in brackets after each source, if you want to do the same (makes it easy to remember what every source is about). I have to go home to look at more books before I add to the shortlist, but please add many more references and add the best ones to the short list before tomorrow. Thanks! Katie322 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hey Hanne are you finding your information pretty easily? what time period in his life are you starting from? wierd running into you in amsterdam hahah how was norway?? --Tniamath (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Warfare's comments[edit]

Hey Hanne, Check out our article's discussion page. Nuclear Warfare has left some very helpful hints for us regarding cleaning up the article :) Katie322 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review, GA nomination, and photo[edit]

Hey Hanne! I've sent out messages to the group regarding your difficulties with saving your name to your work done on the article. I told them that you've asked Jon and that they should keep this in mind when they do yoru peer review. I also just nominated our article for GA status and also asked Nuclear Warfare if he/she wouldn't mind reviewing it. We should still keep workin on it, especially minor edits such as grammar. As for the photo situation (where Ettrig has said that it is copyrighted and can't be used), I asked Ettrig, Jon, and NW what they thought of the situation, but so far there have been no replies, so I guess we'll just hold tight on that one. Buena suerte, amiga! Katie322 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No go on GA, but...[edit]

Hi Hanne,

Check the discussion page, we didn't get the GA status. The reviewer gave us some good feedback though and we may be able to resubmit by Tuesday. Hope all is well! Are you getting stuff sorted with the wiki issues! That super sucks :( --Josiemitchell (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]