Hello!
Hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Suk ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bethany, here's my feedback for those articles:
Child psychopathology <-- article does need some work, but because it's so broad, you should probably focus on just one section if you end up working on it
Developmental niche <-- could be a good one. Needs work and it's not too broad.
Autism spectrum <-- looks like there's a lot of controversy between various editors of the article. Don't do it unless you're willing to go to battle over some things.
Health psychology <-- too broad
Animal cognition <-- already "B-class", which means it's pretty high quality already.
ScottPKingPhD ( talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm afraid I've closed the good article review, as this article has a long way to go until it's ready for GA status yet. I've left some thoughts on the review page- feel free to respond there, or contact me on my talk page. I've also pointed to where you may be able to find others able to help with the topic. J Milburn ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is not written very neutrally – it even seems like at one point it’s stating dance therapy can cure cancer. (It’s an exaggeration, but still). You really like dance therapy, and that’s great! but Wikipedia should be impartial.
And as awesome as Dance Therapy sounds, I find it hard to believe that there are absolutely no negative side effects. Couldn’t someone hurt themselves trying to do a movement they’re not used to? (this isn’t a criticism of DT – antidepressants can cause suicide, but that doesn’t mean antidepressants are a bad thing)
While this guy does seem to want to tear this article apart, he does have some good points for consideration. Talk:Dance_therapy/GA1
One of the biggest things I saw was that even though two people (myself being one of them) changed your list of dance styles into a sentence, you changed it back. Wiki articles are supposed to be mostly prose – it says in one of the policies that, “Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.” It’s easier to read and takes up less space when it’s not a list.
Some of your references seem unclear – a few were improperly placed. (I fixed them for you – I think. You may want to go double check I got them right)
Under “First Wave” – This article isn’t a biography of Marian Chace. She has her own page. This should be limited to her influence on the development of Dance Therapy, not her.
There’s a lot of contradiction between the waves of DMT – “Long before the first wave of DMT in America the 1950s, the UK developed the idea of dance therapy. The first records of dance being used as a form of therapy date as far back as the 19th century in the UK.” – Shouldn’t this be the first wave then?
Marian Chance was “the principal founder of what is now dance therapy in the United States.[8] In 1942, through her work, dance was first introduced to western medicine.” but “It wasn’t until the 1970s and 1980s that the second wave of DMT came around and sparked much interest from American therapists.” So did everyone ignore the first wave?
I’m not sure ‘Allied professions’ is an appropriate section. The “Allied health professions’ page says that Allied health professions are health care professions distinct from dentistry, optometry, nursing, medicine, and pharmacy.[1] Apparently the UK recognizes Drama therapy – it’s possible that dance therapy is also recognized. I’m not sure that ‘these occupations could potentially take classes and become a dance therapist’ is a good addition to the article.
You may also want to check out the Art therapy page to use as a model – it looks like an objective, scientifically cited article.
Sorry if this comes across as harsh - I don't mean it that way. Ashley Suk ( talk) 14:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help but here is some feedback:
1. as for neutrality is was really one sided when I started and really all opinion and no facts.
2. the list was a list in the reference
3. the neg. section says that no neg. have been reported(in my opinion probably b/c it is tapered for each individual even in group settings)
4.thanks for fixing the references i han't a clue where they were to go
5."first wave"/waves sections i have nothing to do with
6. allied professions is what the article used
The article overall seems to be pretty clean and nice. The one thing I noticed is that everything seems very upbeat and very promoting of dance therapy, but there are not any side-effects or criticisms listed other than the one small section that basically says that it has not been studied enough to be deemed as a viable therapy. There were a good amount of just grammatical errors that I had found throughout the article as well. Another thing is the benefits section does not really need to end with "In, conclusion" because it may be the end of the section, but it does not end the article, and is not a necessary part. The article can also be a little choppy when going from sentence to sentence, which could be helped with a little more elaboration on everything. However, it can be seen that a lot of work and effort was put into fixing this article, and it looks much better than it did at the beginning. The article seems like it could be a little more objective, but overall I would say it was pretty good work.
JBelkin24 (
talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Jacob Belkin
Hi 3faith.hope.love! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!
Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 16:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
Hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Suk ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bethany, here's my feedback for those articles:
Child psychopathology <-- article does need some work, but because it's so broad, you should probably focus on just one section if you end up working on it
Developmental niche <-- could be a good one. Needs work and it's not too broad.
Autism spectrum <-- looks like there's a lot of controversy between various editors of the article. Don't do it unless you're willing to go to battle over some things.
Health psychology <-- too broad
Animal cognition <-- already "B-class", which means it's pretty high quality already.
ScottPKingPhD ( talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm afraid I've closed the good article review, as this article has a long way to go until it's ready for GA status yet. I've left some thoughts on the review page- feel free to respond there, or contact me on my talk page. I've also pointed to where you may be able to find others able to help with the topic. J Milburn ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is not written very neutrally – it even seems like at one point it’s stating dance therapy can cure cancer. (It’s an exaggeration, but still). You really like dance therapy, and that’s great! but Wikipedia should be impartial.
And as awesome as Dance Therapy sounds, I find it hard to believe that there are absolutely no negative side effects. Couldn’t someone hurt themselves trying to do a movement they’re not used to? (this isn’t a criticism of DT – antidepressants can cause suicide, but that doesn’t mean antidepressants are a bad thing)
While this guy does seem to want to tear this article apart, he does have some good points for consideration. Talk:Dance_therapy/GA1
One of the biggest things I saw was that even though two people (myself being one of them) changed your list of dance styles into a sentence, you changed it back. Wiki articles are supposed to be mostly prose – it says in one of the policies that, “Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs.” It’s easier to read and takes up less space when it’s not a list.
Some of your references seem unclear – a few were improperly placed. (I fixed them for you – I think. You may want to go double check I got them right)
Under “First Wave” – This article isn’t a biography of Marian Chace. She has her own page. This should be limited to her influence on the development of Dance Therapy, not her.
There’s a lot of contradiction between the waves of DMT – “Long before the first wave of DMT in America the 1950s, the UK developed the idea of dance therapy. The first records of dance being used as a form of therapy date as far back as the 19th century in the UK.” – Shouldn’t this be the first wave then?
Marian Chance was “the principal founder of what is now dance therapy in the United States.[8] In 1942, through her work, dance was first introduced to western medicine.” but “It wasn’t until the 1970s and 1980s that the second wave of DMT came around and sparked much interest from American therapists.” So did everyone ignore the first wave?
I’m not sure ‘Allied professions’ is an appropriate section. The “Allied health professions’ page says that Allied health professions are health care professions distinct from dentistry, optometry, nursing, medicine, and pharmacy.[1] Apparently the UK recognizes Drama therapy – it’s possible that dance therapy is also recognized. I’m not sure that ‘these occupations could potentially take classes and become a dance therapist’ is a good addition to the article.
You may also want to check out the Art therapy page to use as a model – it looks like an objective, scientifically cited article.
Sorry if this comes across as harsh - I don't mean it that way. Ashley Suk ( talk) 14:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help but here is some feedback:
1. as for neutrality is was really one sided when I started and really all opinion and no facts.
2. the list was a list in the reference
3. the neg. section says that no neg. have been reported(in my opinion probably b/c it is tapered for each individual even in group settings)
4.thanks for fixing the references i han't a clue where they were to go
5."first wave"/waves sections i have nothing to do with
6. allied professions is what the article used
The article overall seems to be pretty clean and nice. The one thing I noticed is that everything seems very upbeat and very promoting of dance therapy, but there are not any side-effects or criticisms listed other than the one small section that basically says that it has not been studied enough to be deemed as a viable therapy. There were a good amount of just grammatical errors that I had found throughout the article as well. Another thing is the benefits section does not really need to end with "In, conclusion" because it may be the end of the section, but it does not end the article, and is not a necessary part. The article can also be a little choppy when going from sentence to sentence, which could be helped with a little more elaboration on everything. However, it can be seen that a lot of work and effort was put into fixing this article, and it looks much better than it did at the beginning. The article seems like it could be a little more objective, but overall I would say it was pretty good work.
JBelkin24 (
talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Jacob Belkin
Hi 3faith.hope.love! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!
Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 16:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)