JoshRavi
| This user is a student editor in James_Madison_University/Critical_Reading_and_Writing_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
editHello, JoshRavi, 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) 15:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Holland Lops
editHi! I wanted to give you and your writing partner Wowsocool some feedback and hopefully explain some of Pepperbeast's actions.
- Some portions of the article are unsourced - all content must be backed up by independent and reliable sources that explicitly state the claims.
- Avoid casual and subjective terms and phrases like 'interestingly'. This is subjective to the reader, as they may view another thing as more interesting or not at all. The same thing goes for calling something dangerous, as this is also something that will be subjective to the reader. As pointed out by Pepperbeast, the phrase "known dangerous game to play" is too casual a tone for Wikipedia.
- You also need to be careful about the types of sources used. For example, This website is a self-published Weebly blog, which makes it unreliable as far as Wikipedia goes because we can't guarantee the site's editorial oversight and verification process or if they have either. This doesn't mean that the blog is necessarily wrong, just that we can't guarantee that everything in the blog is correct. You should only use self-published sources if we can show where the source has been routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly sources. For example, the website for the American Rabbit Breeders Association (a known authority on the topic of rabbits) links to the club website for Holland Lops, making it an exception to the blog rule.
- I would also avoid any site that is selling something to the reader, such as a pet healthcare plan or services. They're typically not seen as really usable sources as the use of their site can be seen as an endorsement of what they're selling, which poses an issue with neutrality. We can't always guarantee that they're reliable either, as they don't always have their editorial and verification process posted.
- It's generally better to go with academic and scholarly sources like this. This book is a popular press book, but some of these can definitely be usable. You can also use the information from the Association and club websites as well - those are definitely usable. (The reason these are usable is because they're seen as official pages and are considered by many to be the authority on the topic of rabbits and specifically Holland Lops.) I know that sourcing in these avenues is somewhat limited, so always make sure to check to ensure that the website has their editorial and verification process/information posted, that they have information about who writes it (at least an editorial or staff page posted so that it's not random people), and that the content isn't posted by random users. To be honest, this is why many pages tend to be kind of limited as there's not always a lot of sources out there.
- Keep in mind that the Wikipedia article is meant to be a general overview for the topic of Holland Lops. I'd review the articles on Least weasel, Little brown bat, and especially Winter white dwarf hamster to see how the article should be laid out. Going into a lot of detail about their care and housing can be seen as too overly detailed as far as Wikipedia's concerns go.
- Also keep in mind that others will edit the page - we can't really ask anyone to stay off the page. I know you weren't entirely aware of this, but this can be seen as a definite faux pas on Wikipedia.
I can't really speak for Pepperbeast, but I assume that these were the reasons they were removing content. Hopefully they will leave a note here as well. In the meantime I wanted to leave you with this brochure on editing on ecology topics, as it can prove to be helpful. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)