Talk:Jane Roberts/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Automated Peer Review

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/December_2008#Jane_Roberts

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoVomit (talk • contribs)

Peer Review Comments

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I also reviewed Seth Material, so many of the criticisms there also apply here.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Skidmore is only in the lead, for example. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way and all the main ideas. Please see WP:LEAD
• Article needs an image
• Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of the Seth Material section has no refs and there are several citation needed tags. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Per WP:MOSQUOTE you should use {{blockquote}}, not {{cquote}}. Also block quotes should be about 4 lines of text and on my screen it is only 1.5 lines, so it may be too short for a block quote.
• There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - in most cases these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• Having read both this and the Seth Material, there is not a lot in here that is not also in the other article. There is relatively little on her life - what did she die of? Did she have children? What did she like to do besides write and channel? What did her SF works do in terms of sales?
• Language is a bit awkward in spots - Roberts also purportedly channeled several other personalities,[1] including the philosopher William James,[6] through a process she described as using a typewriter to write "automatically",[7][8][9] and the impressionist painter Paul Cézanne.[10][1] would read much more smoothly as Roberts also purportedly channeled several other personalities,[1] including the philosopher William James[6] and the impressionist painter Paul Cézanne,[1][10] through a process she described as using a typewriter to write "automatically".[7][8][9] Note I also put the refs in numerical order.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoVomit (talk • contribs)

• • I am shocked that there is almost no skepticism or negative criticism of the entire Seth phenomenon! All the "criticism" accepts Seth channeling as real. Surely there are enough members of the psychological community to be able to explain the emergence of unconscious complexes as "other" personalities. Surely there are enough philosophers or specialists in myth & religion to note that none of Seth's insights are new. I mean, where's the skeptics? (Greg Nixon)

Picture

A picture of Roberts would make this article more attractive. Keep in mind that any picture uploaded needs to have complete copyright information available. Since she is dead, under Fair Use we should be able to get a low resolution image of her to upload. It would have to satisfy all of the criteria under WP:NFC however and provide a "free use rationale" . . . the J. B. Priestley and Silk Smitha are good examples. A book cover would not do unless the book in question was being discussed, but a scan of a photo from one of the books with complete copyright information might do OK. NoVomit (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a picture of her, and tried to make sure the Fair Use Criteria was valid. Others may want to double check me on this. NoVomit (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Butts Wiki

Hi, Robert Butts was at least as responsible for the Seth material as Jane Roberts (it would not have happened without both of them), and he was an artist and publisher in his own right. I was hoping someone would help add to the stub I started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fabian_Butts

Laurel 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel (talk • contribs)

Edit for tone and style

Have edited this for encyclopedic tone and style.--Parkwells (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean up writing

there were a few places in this article where it's impossible to know what is being quoted and what isn't.

in the "Early Life..." section, the 4th paragraph--much of this paragraph reads as opinion, or autobiographical, or...some sort of medical diagnosis. yet there is only a long string of sources placed at the end of the paragraph. is this an actual WP practice?? i understand that a paragraph where every sentence is sourced is cumbersome, but the 'method' used here leaves the reader wondering if just the last sentence is extremely well-documented, while the rest of the paragraph emerged from some WP writer's backside.

same section, the 5th paragraph (beginning with "Jane had been going with a fellow...")--a quotation is started here:

She "then found out — [while she] was working in a radio factory. ...

first of all, this sentence makes NO sense. then, the "quote" runs on....i guess until the end of the paragraph. there was no way to tell really. although i did change the quotation marks used to match the first initial quote marks. good luck, whoever wants to tackle this one.

in the "Seth Material" section--the very long quotation would probably look better/read better if put into block quote format, rather than being italicized.Colbey84 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links

first comment/question: this link—"List of Seth Sessions by Mary Dillman," and this link—"Index of Eleven Seth Books by Sue R. Williams," both go to the same webpage--the front page of a website put up by Mary Dillman that is Seth related. it doesn't link directly to any sort of list.

next comment/question: the last 4 links are all for websites/pages for a "Lynda Dahl." this surprised me, as i didn't remember seeing that name anywhere in the article. a search led me to ref/source #15, which is: "ESP Power, by Jane Roberts (2000) (introductory essay by Lynda Dahl). ISBN 0-88391-016-0"

the relatively recent publication date caught my eye. i did a search for the book and found a "Fells' Official Know-it-all Guide to ESP Power," first published in 1974, then in 1997, and then in 2000. "How to Develop Your ESP Powers" was published in 1966 by Pocket Books. (which means this item is incorrect in the "Complete writings" list, which lists the publisher as "Federick Fell." i found it on AbeBooks, and the cover clearly shows "Pocket Books." and, at any rate, i'm fairly certain it should at least be "Frederick.")

at any rate, i could not find a single site that had this 2000 reprinted book available (store or library) that listed an introduction, let alone an introduction by a Lynda Dahl. nor was an introduction mentioned on those pages that had the original 1966 book available. which leads me to ask if this can be verified? if not, i question the inclusion of it in the "References" item.

and, whether the introduction is verified or not, i question having 4 external links for a different person on an author's WP article. it starts to come across as self-promotion, so i bring it here for discussion. Note: the final link—"Seth/Jane Roberts Books and Info"—is to a Facebook page maintained by Linda Dahl.Colbey84 (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jane Roberts. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://newworldview.com/library/Helfrich_P_Seth_on_a_Conscious_Creation_Myth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)