Booksntea

Hi Booksntea! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Booksntea, 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) 21:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Gun violence

Hi! I saw that your edit to this article was reverted by Objective3000, who removed it because the source looked to be a student paper that wasn't used as a citation by anyone. I checked and it looks like the source isn't cited anywhere. I also reviewed the about page for the journal. While the journal does allow academics and other non-student people to submit works for publication, the journal itself is student run. This poses an issue of verification and editorial oversight, as students aren't always as likely to spot issues as say, an editorial board made up of people who have years of publishing and editorial experience under their belts as well as expertise in their given field(s). If the paper had been frequently cited that may have been enough to show that it would be reliable, but it looks like it hasn't been.

I wouldn't worry too overly much about this - it's an easy mistake to make, so it's always a good idea to review the journal and make sure that it has a good editorial oversight. My only other note was that this was added to the lead. In general the lead should only contain information that is already discussed in the body of the article and is of major importance enough to justify being highlighted in the lead overview. Journal issues aside, one of the here is that the potential solutions discussed in the journal article were created by a single person. If this person was a prominent authority whose paper was cited many, many times and the solutions discussed and backed by other authorities, then it would be good to highlight them in the lead (and have them elsewhere in the article) but if they're not that prominent of an authority their suggestions should only be in the body of the article.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)