User talk:JelenaGo

Welcome![edit]

Hello, JelenaGo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Romaine (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The project page can be found at: Wikipedia:Benelux Education Program/Maastricht University/FPN Historical Book Review Spring 2017. Romaine (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on your article[edit]

Hello JelenaGo, 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. I especially 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! But: "Deutsch" is a German word, not an English word. Your article will be part of the English Wikipedia, so please change "Deutsch". Also I need references for your first paragraph.
Links: A good start! But I need some more keywords in your article to be linked. Like: "psychoanalyst", "Vienna", "Stuttgart", etc.
Headers: okay
References: A good start! More references and sources are welcome!
Context/timeframe: In the section Background you mix two subjects. This article is about the book. The author has its own (separate) article. In the Background section you write too much a biography on the author. Please go through this section and remove those parts that have no relationship to the book. In the section of background you need to describe the context of the book, in what time was it written, etc.
How was the book received: This needs to be a separate section. This section should describe how it was received and how psychoanalysts have used/continued on this book.
Other: The section Content reads too much like a book report. Wikipedia articles are no book reports, but try to describe a subject in an encyclopedic style.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before our next meeting. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JelenaGo, Thank you for improving your article! Last week we specifically asked to make sure you add sources/references to your article, because that is one of the most important parts of a Wikipedia article. We also wanted to make sure the intro sentence/section is ready. Let's see how it is going now.

Intro sentence: Good!
Links: Good.
Headers: okay
References: One of the best examples seen so far, but a bit more references are welcome. A small detail: add references behind the dot and no space between the dot and the reference. Please add if possible also references in the section "Content" to where certain parts come from in the book, like the chapter or page.
Context/timeframe: Good.
How was the book received: Good, can perhaps be improved by other receptions.

You have one of the best articles currently, but not fully ready yet. Think also about when to use capitals, I do not think "Psychoanalysis" needs to have a cpital when used in a sentence. Romaine (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JelenaGo, I add the images of the book to your sandbox article. Romaine (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]