Aabifarah
| This user is a student editor in UC_San_Diego/blacklivesmatter_(Spring_2018) . |
| This user is a student editor in UCSD/Introduction_to_Policy_Analysis_(Fall_2017) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Aabifarah, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Food Justice Movement
editHi! I removed some of the content you added to this article and wanted to explain why.
The first is that I removed the long list of various organizations associated with food justice. With general article topics like this, it's generally discouraged to have long lists of organizations as those can place undue weight on those organizations - making the focus of the article more about the organizations than the general topic of food justice. Another issue with this list was that there wasn't really enough sourcing (and in some cases no sourcing) to show where these organizations are major and notable enough to justify going into that much depth about them and highlighting them over other, similar organizations. Some of the writing also came across as non-neutral and in favor of the organizations, which could make the article seem biased. Even if the average person would agree with you that these organizations are good, the content still needs to be written in a neutral fashion.
I also removed the section about fast food industries targeting black children. The issue here is that the section was written like an essay or reflection piece on the topic, which was sourced to a single study. Studies are problematic as sources on Wikipedia because they're seen as primary sources for the data and research created by its author(s). The publishing journal and institution that oversees the researchers' work doesn't reproduce the work to ensure its accuracy or provide any sort of reflection or commentary on the study - they look to see that the work doesn't have any obvious holes or issues with it prior to publication. An independent, secondary reliable source is needed to help verify the claims as well as to help show why this specific study should be highlighted over other, perhaps more general studies that could contradict its findings.
You mention studies in other sections as well - you should always have secondary sources for this since it's actually pretty easy for people to question whether or not the study is the best source for the article or was chosen to argue a specific point. Also, there are also concerns with writing in an essay-like tone with other areas. The general rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that the content should be written in a neutral point of view without personal reflections on the content - the material should also be explicitly backed up in reliable sources. If the source does not specifically make the claim, it should not be in the article.
None of this is meant to be harsh, it's just that there are still a lot of issues with the content. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)