Anjames342

Welcome!

Hello, Anjames342, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

2018 Idaho Proposition 2

Hi, I saw that you extensively edited this article - I wanted to reach out to you and give you some notes. Most of the notes will center around how articles like this are typically structured and written on Wikipedia. For example, the articles typically do not list the exact wording for propositions and so on when it comes to how it's on the ballot. Sometimes it will be mentioned if the exact wording is of great importance, but in general the expectation is that the article will summarize the content in a way that not only explains what the measures are, but also gives the necessary context to understand any background. While this isn't the exact same thing, the article on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is an example of how this should look. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 article is one of the best written articles on Wikipedia, so it's definitely a good resource to pull on as far as how things should be laid out and be covered. The article on the 1995 Quebec referendum is also a good one to use as a guide.

• The headers should be not be bolded and underlined, nor contain italics. The only time you would include this is if the header uses the title of something that is styled like this.

• With information, keep in mind that just placing data into an article doesn't really explain what it means or why it's important. There's a lot of content that's just sort of put into the article without an explanation as to why it's pertinent to the topic. For example, the section on cost and financing mentions studies, but not how this really pertains to the given proposition. Yes, the studies dealt with Medicaid, but what are people stating in the sources when they are bringing these studies up in relation to the proposition?

This is probably one of the big differences between Wikipedia and places like Ballotpedia, as Ballotpedia tends to just list basic information and not really provide a huge amount of context and things of that nature.

• Avoid using euphemisms and hyperbole when it comes to Wikipedia - these may be pleasant to read, but they're kind of vague and can make something come across as fairly casual in tone.

• When it comes to supporters and campaigning, this is something that should be more minimal than extensive, unless there is a lot of coverage for this in independent and reliable sources. To be honest, this is all content that would be better made into a background section.

• In most cases the list of donors and supporters is unnecessary to add to the article unless there's a lot of coverage in independent and reliable sources to establish that they're notable enough to add. Keep in mind that the notability of the person or organization doesn't mean that they're notable enough to mention, at least not in any depth - there has to be coverage specifically about them supporting the proposition. This is the type of detail that would be seen as too indiscriminate for Wikipedia in most situations since the article is meant to just take a general overview of the topic as opposed to going into extreme detail. To mention Ballotpedia again, this is another way that the two sites differ, since that's more of Ballotpedia's aim - they aim to give the intricate details, whereas Wikipedia tends to be more general.

Right now I'm going through the article and giving it a bit of a cleanup. I've removed the content about the donors and supporters - that's just more detail than Wikipedia typically wants in an article. I'll leave some more notes as I go through the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up a good chunk of the content that would be seen as too detailed - the main thing I need you to do now is go through and provide context and explanation for things by way of summarizing the source material. There's just a lot of this that just feels like it's a collection of data as opposed to an article that explains what the proposition is, to be honest. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate your help and feedback. I will return to this article to flesh out the areas you have mentioned in the near future.

Thanks again, Ashley Anjames342 (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)