Dylanvanetta

Welcome!

Hello, Dylanvanetta, 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) 19:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Scientific Literature

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Scientific Literature. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Scientific literature. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Scientific literature. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Dylanvanetta, I received a notification about this - when creating articles, please make sure to look and see if there are any existing articles that already cover the topic. In these situations you should merge your material into the existing article, as opposed to creating a new article under a different title. I can absolutely help with this process as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! I have some notes for you on the content you added to scientific literature:

• The content needs more sourcing to help back up and establish claims - when you removed some of the prior material, you also removed a lot of good sourcing.

• You edited the section on types of scientific writing and changed this up entirely. The list you used was taken from this source, where it list these types as the types of papers seen in science literature. This is fairly narrow, so keep in mind that papers are only one type of science literature - books, blogs, patents, and so on are also seen as a type of science literature. The types you listed would be seen as say, a sub-type of the main type. To use a comparison, an apple (ie, papers) is a type of fruit (science literature) and granny apples (ex: case studies) are a sub-type.

My suggestion here is that rather than remove and replace this section wholesale, you instead look at potentially creating a sub-section that lists the different types of papers found in science literature. Just keep in mind that you should also look at other, similar things written about the types of science writing, as the source used was written specifically for medicine-centered science writing. It would undoubtedly overlap and is likely very similar or identical to other types of science writing in papers, but it's always good to get a depth of coverage just to make sure. You also want to make sure that this isn't this specific writer's definition of science writing. You can likely still use it even if it is, but you would have to attribute it to the author.

• Watch out for grammar, as there are some errors here and there.

• Make sure that there isn't redundancy in your writing. For example, the lead section already introduces the idea of science writing, so you don't really need to do a re-introduction later in the article. You can just get down to the nitty gritty.

• You removed the section that includes information on preparation and so on - make sure that if you're replacing this, that you're replacing it with something that better and more concisely describes the same information, while also using proper sourcing.

• When writing, make sure that you avoid writing point of view statements in "Wikipedia's voice" unless it is considered to be a standard that's so widely held that it's universal. For example, the statement that the sky is blue is one that is widely held, so it can be written as "The sky is blue.", as it's OK to have Wikipedia making that statement. However statements along the lines of "Aliens live in the sky" or "The sky is creepy" are considered to be personal points of view that would be relative to the person making or reading the statement, as it's likely that this is not a widely held opinion or belief. In these situations, you must attribute this to the person or outlet making the claims, such as "According to..." or "So-and-so states that...".

Any claim that looks likely to be debated should be attributed - especially if they're controversial.

• Source-wise, I also want to warn you to be cautious about using studies, such as this one. This was used to cite the section on retractions, however the issue here is that these are statements that the scientists have made based on their own research, which only looked at one database. While databases are likely going to have a lot of the same articles, it's never a guarantee and what may be true for one may not be for another. There are then of course questions about other things, such as whether or not someone holding the same or similar study would come up with similar results or something else entirely - there are a whole range of things to consider. Essentially, this is a primary source and as such, shouldn't be quoted as fact, even if the study looks legit.

What you need to source a study like this are secondary, independent sources that discuss the study and give it context, as well as potentially compare it against similar studies. It looks like there are quite a few sources out there that do discuss and/or cite this study, so definitely give those a look. ([1])

This may seem like a lot, but essentially a lot of this is just cautions to work on improving the sourcing and grammar, as well as to make sure that you're careful to examine what sourcing you're using, as well as to be careful about what you're removing or replacing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! I made some section by section notes at User talk:Dylanvanetta/sandbox. I made some tweaks to your draft as well and made notes on why at the section notes. I did return your section on types of scientific publications to the main article with some of the tweaks I mentioned - it's all still your work, I just shifted things around a little.

Definitely let me know what I can do to help - I know that all of this may seem like a lot but I don't want it to seem like I'm not willing to lend a hand to pitch in. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)