Talk:Frederick Jackson Turner/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (expanded) |
imported>Roger A. Lohmann No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
: What's there so far looks very good, but I'd suggest a tiny bit more material, and a bit of reorganization. It would be nice to add a bit more bio material (early life, education, career); what's there now is the bare-bones minimum (although more is not essential for approval). One thing I think is definitely needed is to split it up into sections, and organize the material a bit: intro, "biography", "contributions", or something like that (where some of the details of his theories would go), "influence" (OSLT) where material on what people currently think of his ideas would go, etc. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 08:31, 6 April 2008 (CDT) | : What's there so far looks very good, but I'd suggest a tiny bit more material, and a bit of reorganization. It would be nice to add a bit more bio material (early life, education, career); what's there now is the bare-bones minimum (although more is not essential for approval). One thing I think is definitely needed is to split it up into sections, and organize the material a bit: intro, "biography", "contributions", or something like that (where some of the details of his theories would go), "influence" (OSLT) where material on what people currently think of his ideas would go, etc. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 08:31, 6 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
::good advice, and I followed up on it. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:14, 6 April 2008 (CDT) | ::good advice, and I followed up on it. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:14, 6 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
::Richard, A few small questions: 1) Is it sectional hypotheses (plural) or hypothesis (singular)? The discussion appears to suggest only one, but the essays seem to be plural. 2) I don't understand the case for "Further Reading" on the main page instead of the bibliography. Neither of these is an important enough consideration to delay, so I'm going to start the clock ticking on Approval. | |||
:[[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 20:13, 9 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 19:13, 9 April 2008
Status
This article may benefit by some additional related topics links on the Related Articles page. Other than that, is it ready for Approval? Roger Lohmann 19:07, 5 April 2008 (CDT)
- yes, looks good. I added further reading and added links to bibliography. Richard Jensen 03:51, 6 April 2008 (CDT)
- What's there so far looks very good, but I'd suggest a tiny bit more material, and a bit of reorganization. It would be nice to add a bit more bio material (early life, education, career); what's there now is the bare-bones minimum (although more is not essential for approval). One thing I think is definitely needed is to split it up into sections, and organize the material a bit: intro, "biography", "contributions", or something like that (where some of the details of his theories would go), "influence" (OSLT) where material on what people currently think of his ideas would go, etc. J. Noel Chiappa 08:31, 6 April 2008 (CDT)
- good advice, and I followed up on it. Richard Jensen 11:14, 6 April 2008 (CDT)
- Richard, A few small questions: 1) Is it sectional hypotheses (plural) or hypothesis (singular)? The discussion appears to suggest only one, but the essays seem to be plural. 2) I don't understand the case for "Further Reading" on the main page instead of the bibliography. Neither of these is an important enough consideration to delay, so I'm going to start the clock ticking on Approval.
- Roger Lohmann 20:13, 9 April 2008 (CDT)