User talk:Ntj2

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Ntj2! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Your first edits

Good job leaving a note on my talk page ([1]). I see you added a Wikipedia:Signature ([2]) and a diff ([3]), great! Also, good job adding yourself to your group ([4]). Please don't forget to add your first name to the parenthesis that follow so that I can know who you are. Keep up the good job, and try making more edits on Wikipedia to get a feel for it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First deadline

Please note you should still leave a comment on an article's talk page. Let me know when you do so, and I'll treat it as an extra credit activity (it is too late for the assignment deadline for that particular task). PS. At the same time, excellent job adding this reference. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra credit reference

Good job with this edit! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

last edit

Hi Nicole, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but I saw that you took away the citations after each section. If it was not the correct source than I understand, but we need to put citations after every sentence or a wiki nazi will come after us so if you could just put them that would be great. If you have trouble doing it please let me know --Naf24 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Grounds for divorce (United States)

The article Grounds for divorce (United States) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Hello Nicole,

We got more reviews on our wiki page last night. The teacher suggested we add a history section to our page.. He goes into more detail as to what he would like to see in the discussion section.. Natalie and I were suggesting you do the section because we both did three sections to our page and you only did two... We just want everybody in our group to get equal amount of points... Please let me know what you think..

Thanks, --Nas132 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nicole!

That would be great! Yes, I am the no-fault section. Good tip. I think I did change all the problems with the close paraphrasing... Then did you read that one review in the dyk section? --Nas132 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Reason for rejection[reply]

I am rejecting this article because of the close paraphrasing and failed verifications. After 34 days, much discussion has occurred and significant improvements to the article have been made. However, the problems I found are not trivial and indicate that the article needs much work. I spotchecked the article for close paraphrasing and other issues. I did not review the entire article, so there may be more close paraphrasing or citation issues that need to be addressed. Additional comments:

Citing sources like the following: 1.Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. 1. Callaghan. pp. 420–443. http://books.google.com/books?id=vgs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA469. Retrieved 9 October 2011. 2.Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. 1. Callaghan. pp. 444–468. http://books.google.com/books?id=vgs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA469. Retrieved 9 October 2011. should be avoided. Page ranges of over 20 pages make checking sources difficult. The citations should be broken down into small ranges of no more than two pages if the information is spread out through 20 pages. Several of the sources use "pp." when only one page is being cited. The |p= should be used instead of |pp= in such cases. In the "Irretrievable breakdown" section, marriage is overlinked. In the "State acceptance" section, the term "no-fault" is presented inconsistently. It is quoted once, then italicized, and without quotes or italics. ISBNs should be consistently formatted: either with our without hyphens. Nelson; Henderson (1895). A treatise on the law of divorce and annulment of marriage. 1. Callaghan. pp. 500. http://books.google.com/books?id=vgs9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA469. Retrieved 9 October 2011. Nelson and Henderson's book was published in 1895 and was used to cite "Defenses commonly used to prevent a fault divorce are". The article does not make it clear that the information is over one century old. A more current source should be used since the article is framed to discuss contemporary issues. Concluding comments:

This is the second DYK nomination from this class I have had to fail. (The first is here.) The common reasons for failure were close paraphrasing and failed verifications. I recommend that in the future, the articles are checked for close paraphrasing and inaccurate citations prior to a DYK nomination. DYK's resources are limited and this nomination has expended much time from several reviewers. There are deep problems with this article that cannot be resolved within DYK's narrow timeframe. I thank the students, particularly Nas132 (talk · contribs), for responding to and addressing Nikkimaria's concerns about close paraphrasing. I thank Piotrus (talk · contribs) for guiding his students during this DYK nomination and helping them with editing the articles. This is frequently not the case, as noted here and here by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Cunard commented again for our good article nomination.. So we have to check to make sure that all these issues are being taken care of as well.. See you in class --Nas132 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing center

Hey Nicole!

I have to leave class early to go to the writing center. which is the best way to contact you?--Nas132 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip! if you have the time would you beable to print it out for me? I am at work and dont have a printer.. I guess I can find it online here?--Nas132 (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cool! thanks for all your help!--Nas132 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Hey Nicole,

I went to the writing center again yesterday. I could only get a 30 minute appointment... That was enough time to check over my section. What are your thoughts on what we should do about the editing? Happy Thanksgiving--Nas132 (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment that the teacher left on our discussion page: It is important that various sections share the same style and flow logically into one another. A collaborative project needs to have at least one editor who ensures that the contribution of various authors fit well with one another, both with regards to logic, and to style.