Talk:Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos

Awkward to read sentence?

I am far from perfect in English grammar but I am finding reading of sentence ".. The German Gestaltists did not develop a psychotherapy, and Vera Felicidade, since the beginning of her work in clinical practice and benefited both by Gestalt concepts and by Phenomenology - Edmund Husserl - started the development of Gestalt Psychotherapy, a term coined by her. .." bit awkward, can some one reassess this one. Bookku (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I have rewritten the sentence and I think it is much better now. Thank you for your advice. I'm still waiting for the entry to be moved to Wikipedia's mainspace, hopefully soon. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Please simplify the references to the normal Wikipedia format: a bibliographic reference, with optionally a translation of the title if it is not in English, and optionally a brief quotation to illustrate the key point being used. Thus your first reference should be something like:

Malin, Betty (March 2010). "Por que Fisicalismo?" [Why physicalism?]. Revista Litteris (in Portuguese). 4. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. ISSN 1983-7429. the gestalt psychologist Vera Felicidade de Almeida Campos, creator of Gestalt Psychotherapy

It is not necessary, or appropriate, to tell us the academic qualifications of the author, nor to translate the title of the journal (if I'm getting this right, in identifying the journal). As it's a journal without a Wikipedia article, it might be useful to include its issn. Other commentary on the source belongs in the article, not in the reference list. PamD 22:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@PamD OK I see your point, you are right. I will correct the references and create "notes" when clarification of the text is needed. And yes, you are right, Litteris is the Journal or Magazine of the University of Rio de Janeiro. Thanks a lot ! @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Just glancing at this, the length of the Notes section seems a bit excessive to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham thanks for your comment. After your intervention I have modified the Notes, decreased it by maybe 40%. I would like to get feedback from you on this now and if you think the entry is ok to be moved to mainspace. I have been working a lot on the article in the last 2 weeks from the intervention of experienced editors like you, especially on the references. Thanks in advance. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not an AFC reviewer, so someone will review it in due course. Some of the referencing style is a bit usual to me, but it seems very comprehensive so shouldn't be an issue.

The final reference has 29 parts to it though, which also seems excessive to me. It doesn't need to be an exhaustive list. I think some of the Notes might be better suited as References, and it might be worth you taking a look at MOS:NOTES - generally I'd expect notes to be explanatory and references to be citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham OK thanks. I will work more on the notes. In the first version I had put everything under References, but with the suggestion of one of the editors I found it interesting to create Notes, but it was not clear to me the difference between the two. And I will shorten the parts of the last reference leaving the most important. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The "Reference" number 33 is not the way to write a Wikipedia article. You could list some of her most important papers under "Selected publications" in the body of the article. The papers about her: if one or two are substantial works which would help the reader to go further than what is in the article, you could list them under "Further reading", but in general either use content from them and cite them, or leave them out. We don't need to show the reader every article written about Campos's work. PamD 11:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lidia Pita And, please use the standard Wikipedia formatting. Quotes in references do not go in italics. It is easiest if you use the standard Wikipedia templates like {{Cite journal}}, which will then format the publication date, quotes, etc. In your most recent edit you seem to be undoing attempts to standardise your references (eg the "In the Light of Perception" one) and going back to your personal preferred format. PamD 11:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@PamD I will make the changes regarding quotes and italics. I didn't return my formatting, what happened was that someone came in and changed some references leaving the "wrong code", with the code showing in the text, I just fixed that. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@PamD ok I will make the changes regarding reference 33, thank you. @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

And in another recent edit you have, without explanation, removed an AfC message, and removed the {{use mdy dates}}. Why? Do you disagree that the dates should be in the format "April 10, 2023" and believe they should be "10 April 2023"? Do you not understand what the template is for so removed it for that reason? Was it just an accident? I note that the birth date in the lead is given as "August 18, 1942" (that is what we call "mdy dates") and that in the infobox as "1942, 08, 18" (that is completely unacceptable anywhere: see MOS:DATE. All-numeric dates, formatted as 1942-08-18, may only be used (a) as "access-date" or (b) in a table or similar layout where space is at a premium. They are not used for birth dates in infoboxes, and the format you used is never used.) PamD 11:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The AfC comment is valid: those refs with text like "(publishing date: RADICE magazine, Year 3, Nº 11, 1980, pp. 32–38, Rio de Janeiro)" don't make sense. Please format the references in a standard way. I've done the Thadeu one as an example but it's really up to you. PamD 12:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You hadn't translated the title in the "trans-title" field: I hope I got it right. PamD 12:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@PamD I entered publishing date referring to the physical publication date of the magazines and newspapers and not the online publication date, but if it doesn't make sense, I'll remove it. I saw the example you did in Thadeu, ok I got it, thanks (the translation of Felicidade is really Happiness, but the title of this article makes a pun with Campos' personal name - Vera Felicidade -, it probably only makes sense in Portuguese, so, leave Happiness anyway). Lidia Pita (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The date it was put onto a website is irrelevant. What matters is (a) the publication details, just as if you had a paper press cutting or were looking at it in a library, and (b) the "access-date", associated with the URL, which shows that it was online on that particular date. (a) is the bibliographic reference, and (b) is about availability online. You aren't citing the website, you are citing the original paper which happens, conveniently and as an added bonus, to be available on her website. If you only had a pile of press cuttings, as long as you had the publication info, you could cite them, but people much prefer to see a link to an online copy: readers, so that they can read it, and editors, so that they can verify the content it supports. Sources for articles don't have to be available online (think of most books), but it's nice when they are. So fill in the fields of the citation template for the bibliographic information you have - for the Thadeu one it was helpfully shown in detail at the top, though I had to use "Volume" for "Anno/year" and "Issue" for "No." PamD 14:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@PamD I removed Afc message because I understood that I would make the suggested changes and this would be ok. I agree with mdy date and had not noticed the error in the infobox (probably because in Portuguese the format is dmy, sorry). @Lidia Pita Lidia Pita (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)