This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This journal has only one related topic placed under a recently created and unneccessary 'see also' section of the article? There are obviously a lot more related topics that should be also now be included for balance and representation. However if another 10 or 20 other relevant fields were now added it may entirely 'dwarf' the brief format of a journal? Maybe all journals should not include 'see also' sections. I notice most journals don't. Interested in other editor's opinions on this article issue and the proposal for all brief journal articles not to include a see also section?
Anyway, the see also section in this article, should be either: 1. deleted or 2. a lot more relevant topics added also. Mrm7171 ( talk) 01:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171. I am ok with what you added. It gives the reader an idea of the scope of the journal by linking to topics it covers. At one time I thought it was best to only link to things that were closely related, but RandyKitty convinced me that it is ok to link to topics, even if they are not so closely related. Maybe other articles on journals should have more links too. Psyc12 ( talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This journal has only one related topic placed under a recently created and unneccessary 'see also' section of the article? There are obviously a lot more related topics that should be also now be included for balance and representation. However if another 10 or 20 other relevant fields were now added it may entirely 'dwarf' the brief format of a journal? Maybe all journals should not include 'see also' sections. I notice most journals don't. Interested in other editor's opinions on this article issue and the proposal for all brief journal articles not to include a see also section?
Anyway, the see also section in this article, should be either: 1. deleted or 2. a lot more relevant topics added also. Mrm7171 ( talk) 01:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171. I am ok with what you added. It gives the reader an idea of the scope of the journal by linking to topics it covers. At one time I thought it was best to only link to things that were closely related, but RandyKitty convinced me that it is ok to link to topics, even if they are not so closely related. Maybe other articles on journals should have more links too. Psyc12 ( talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)