User talk:Damula.

Feedback on your article

Hello Damula., 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
• Links: sufficient for now, you may find more keywords to link.
• Headers: I would suggest to change the structure of your article. Usually we have first the intro section, and then followed by the historical context/timeframe, then the contents of the book itself and then the reception. The short summary of the book and the reception (including critical assessment) is not something I should mix up. Can you please split this up?
• References: You made a good start, but more are needed. Please add a reference at least one in every paragraph, and after every two or three sentences.
• Context/timeframe: Too much "for example", "unfortunately", "however"... And "In many articles Mrs. Dr. Maitland-king was referenced." is a bit weird sentence, not common. Instead I would ask you to give more articles in what she is mentioned that you think are related to this book and/or give an impression about her.
• How was the book received: missing, seems not described, please use separate section for this.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before today's meeting. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Today a new review:

• Intro sentence: good
• Links: too many! With previous review I only meant only a few more links. To start: remove all the links from the title in the first sentence. Also unlink years. Please go through your article and make sure you only link keywords. A link to "newspaper" in the section Historical context is not a keyword!
• Headers: sufficient
• Context/timeframe: good
• How was the book received: The header "Critical assessment" can be removed, the section Reception is to short. It needs to be clarified what "this" refers to: "This was normal for the historical context of the book." The last paragraph is something I largely would not expect in an article.
• References: sufficient! Please add references behind the dot, not before the dot.

Is it possible to fix these comments in your sandbox article before/during our meeting today? Thanks! Romaine (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Hygiene of Womanhood: A book for mothers and daughters being lectures to ladies on common sense guides to health, strength and beauty

Hi I moved this article to draft space as an alternative to deletion. I have done this because there are almost no references to the book in the sources that you provided from independent relaible sources. A lot of the sources were simple copies of other sources and contain some rather trivial stuff. That said I think that there is enough material to create an article on the author herself. I would suggest that you use the information in this article to create a biography on her.

However you must not include the WP:Original research such as Therefore, her attitude indicated in the book seems to make an interesting step in the direction of modern positive psychology introduced only recently in 1998

or this pharse This fits the idea of focusing on happiness and positive emotions, as practiced in positive psychology.

or this phrase It is likely that Dr. Mailand-King was influenced by this movement as well, as she stresses the importance of words and empathy in treating patients..

These opinions are your own and must not be included in an article. All information has to be sourced and not deduced.

I hope this is clear but please do not hesitate to contact me if not. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Hygiene of Womanhood: A book for mothers and daughters being lectures to ladies on common sense guides to health, strength and beauty

Hello, Damula.. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Hygiene of Womanhood: A book for mothers and daughters being lectures to ladies on common sense guides to health".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)