Ikaarin

Ikaarin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ikaarin! 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 Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Ikaarin, 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) 14:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi! I wanted to give you some feedback on your draft. I noticed that you were doing summaries of the book. Something I wanted to give you a head's up on is that book summaries should be fairly to the point and should only include content that is in the book itself. I see that you reference other works in the summaries - unless Davis explicitly makes mention of these other works in this manner, they should not be included in the summary. Basically, this would be seen as original research and a personal reflection on Davis's work and the topic. It'd be about the same as someone discussing vampire lore while summarizing Dracula or Twilight. It could be well written and thought out, but it still would not be a summary of the book itself, if that makes sense. I haven't read the book you're summarizing so I wasn't sure if this was the case or not, but wanted to give you a head's up.

On a side note, I do think that summarizing the book is a good idea - this is an area that often gets overlooked in many book articles, as it's comparatively much easier to write a themes or reception section than it is to summarize the content. Especially with non-fiction works that discuss complicated topics or points in history. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Feedback

First, I would like to thank Isra for the extremely detailed peer review. Her review certainly provided me with a lot of suggestions. I agree with organizing the structure of the original article since it was a bit messy, and that is something that Abby and myself have already considered. This also goes for summarizing which we have also been working on. We wanted to add additional information on this topic which was outside of North America to give a more global perspective of anti-environmentalism. With giving so much new information, yes, we do need to summarize. In regard to adding pictures into the article, both Abby and I decided that the any pictures that would be placed into it would not fully represent our topic of anti-environmentalism properly. The external links and italicizing that was mentioned was for our own editing purposes and will defiantly be fixed up for our final draft. We plan to change the bibliography and clean up any source related issues as well. Regarding some of the suggestions, some of these topics are being edited only by Abby. The two of us have been sharing the same sandbox so it would be difficult for you to know who edited what, but I will certainly pass the message along! Again, I would like to thank Isra for taking the time to carefully pick out suggestions for us, which we both will consider while finishing up our last edits! Emmanhudson99 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)