Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:37, 10 April 2006

Problems

The article as it stood was deeply problematic, violating WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and was not well written. Biographies of living persons must be fair and be fully sourced to reputable sources. I've rewritten the intro, and I've made most of the criticism section invisible until (a) we find material about her life and works so that the criticism section is balanced by other material and (b) we find sources for every point of criticism we make, and then the section must be written so that we say only what the sources said without adding our own commentary, as the previous version did. I'll do some work on it as and when I have time. SlimVirgin 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added an image, and I'm starting to re-add the criticism with sources. SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See also

Antaeus, I've restored the see also section, because it links to the experiments or people she has written about, and although they're linked in the article (although the ones I'm going to add won't be), they're not all linked with their titles. I see no harm in all the experiments being listed together. SlimVirgin 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I can see the intent of that; what you're suggesting is rather like the way an actor's filmography may re-link the names of the movies even though they've been linked on their first appearance in the article text. May I suggest, though, that it receive some more specific section header than "See also", since the conventions regarding "See also" sections are fairly well-established and this doesn't abide by them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The only formal thing I know about "see also" is here. I often include pages that are already linked in the article, because readers don't necessarily read a page from start to finish, but may use it as a reference text, which means they may not see the links inside the text, whereas the "see also" section stands out more. But sure, if you'd rather call it something else, I'd be fine with that too. "List of experiments discussed by Slater" or similar. SlimVirgin 23:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dang, isn't it always the way that you can find the page you're looking for in the WP namespace up until you go to show someone else? Anyways, I can't seem to find it but I know I've read the "See also" sections are for links which are relevant to the article subject but which are not already incorporated in the article itself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually, the pages I need to show someone have either been deleted, or have been edited to say the exact opposite of the point I'm trying to make. :-D SlimVirgin 02:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Award

AA, if you want to add that she won the Bild der Wissenschaft, we need a good source that confirms this i.e. a source that doesn't rely on self-description. The original German source that I deleted and you restored doesn't appear to say she won an award. Can you point out which part of the German you believe says that, because I can't see it, and may be missing it. I've also left a note about this on your talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SV, I gave a better source in the article (which you reverted) What is wrong with this one? agapetos_angel 18:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This says "Four Stories was founded and is run by freelance writer Tracy Slater." This says Tracy and Lauren are sisters. Close relatives are not an unbiased source. WAS 4.250 19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That does not mean that the information is incorrect:

• Library link: (original)/(translation)

• Von "Bild der Wissenschaft" zum Wissenschaftsbuch des Jahres 2005 gewählt
• (selected science book of the year 2005)

• School link: (original)/(translation)

• Von der Zeitschrift Bild der Wissenschaft werden jährlich sechs Bücher ausgewählt, die Wissenschaft zur fesselnden Lektüre machen. Der Preis Wissenschaftsbuch des Jahres wird in folgenden Kategorien vergeben: Überblick – das informativste Buch, Überraschung – das originellste Buch, Zündstoff - das brisanteste Buch, Unterhaltung – das spannendste Buch, Ästhetik– das schönste Buch, Perspektive - das sachkundigste Buch für junge Leser
• (Bild der Wissenschaft magazine annually selects six 'book of the year' for: informative, original, explosive, exciting, aesthetics, perspective). Picture shows Slater's book as 2005 winner under 'Zündstoff' (explosive). Von Menschen und Ratten. Die berühmten Experimente der Psychologie aka Opening Skinner's Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century (in the States)

• Can we agree to add it now? Or do you need more proof that the author won the award? agapetos_angel 05:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the original source you linked to. Why weren't you able to say which part of the original source you were using? Also, is this an award as such, or just a book of the year? SlimVirgin 05:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(ri) No, the other source (first link) stated 'In Deutschland steht das Buch auf der Vorschlagsliste „Wissenschaftsbücher des Jahres 2005“ der Zeitschrift „Bild der Wissenschaft“' Wissenschaftsbücher des Jahres is Science book of the year (2005). I was trying to find you one in English to solve the problem. These other two now provided are also not in English, but show it is valid. This professor calls it an award, as does this source, this source, and . Websites often state they received 'awards' for best website but merely receive a banner or graphic. Best phrasing might be that Bild der Wissenschaft awarded Science Book of the Year (2005) for 'Zündstoff' (explosive). Sound good? agapetos_angel 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)