I6158335

Feedback on your article

Hello I6158335, 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! But the red links need to be fixed or removed.
• Links: okay!
• Headers: Too many! You use too many sub-headers: under each header normally are minimal three paragraphs, before can be thought about a sub-header. Please change "Historical context" to "Context".
• References: A good start but more are needed! Every paragraph and every two/three sentences should have a reference. You can use a reference more than once. Without references an article can't be published.
• Context/timeframe: A good start, but it needs to be more written in relationship to the book. Because in this section I expect to read about what has led to the existence of the book and the timeframe in what the book was written.
• How was the book received: missing! In this section I expect to read about how the book was received, what people thought of it, how it was used, how the perspective of the book is different from modern views, etc.
• Other: The section of the contents should be maximum one third of the article. Don't make it too long!
• Ready to publish: I was hoping you would have been further at this point in time. You really need to catch up!! If needed I can give some feedback in coming weeks.

I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before your final version. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello I6158335, thank you for your message, hereby some further feedback:

• Intro: okay, but this part is weird: "which was specialised on the Esperanto language and situated in Berlin." Perhaps better to make it a separate sentence.
• Links: okay! Better to remove the red links.
• Headers: See below.
• References: Each paragraph should have at the end a reference. Please add the book as reference at the end of the paragraphs in the Content section, and under Reception and influence also one paragraph misses a reference.
• Context/timeframe: We usually do not have sections about the author, but in the Context section you can describe the background of the author as that led to the publication of the book. There should certainly be no header "The author". If I understand correctly, "Die Naturheilkunde" is the first book, your article is about the second book, and afterwards a third book followed.
• Reception:
  • "Even though the book was published at a time where the constraints put on the issue of sex were starting to loosen, it did not open the minds of the majority in a noticeable way." -> I see no reason why this sentence is in the article, such only should be in the article if this was broadly expected, now it reads like you say "I am not Albert Einstein". The sentences following after the first sentence are relevant, but perhaps need to be restructured/rewritten.
  • The part starting with "Today Sexualkundeunterricht ..." is or not relevant and should be removed or it should be described in relationship to the book.
  • Please mention in your article also somehow that the book is part of the special collection of the university (with source for it).
• Other: "Schönenberger himself was a great advocat of naturopathy" -> "great" is weird, please remove this word. "3 years before" -> "Three years before".

Thanks! Romaine (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)