User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Need help request from OmairAdul (talk)

Hello.

I wanted to know if the two sources I have will be enough. Also, Does my contribution plan on the talk page sound good? Am I on the right track? Any other advice would also be helpful.

--OmairAdul (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi OmairAbdul, I'll respond on the article's talk page! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Wc01873 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...moving my stuff from sandbox to article

--Wc01873 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Left message on their talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Amitc008 (talk)

Hello, my name is Athina Mitchell. I am a Communication Studies major at SUNY Plattsburgh. I was present during the live video call we had with you in Doctor Kirsten Isgro's class, but didn't have any questions at the time.

I need help with:

Making sure what I added to the article on "Emotional Intelligence" is aesthetically and intellectually sound. I underlined any changes I made to the original article. The article is already well put together, and my goal is to make it (at least) slightly better.

All the best,

--Amitc008 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Athina Annette Moratakis Mitchell

• Hi Amitc008, are you talking about edits made to your sandbox or edits you made to the live article? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from MaggieMaloney11 (talk)

Hello.

Could you check this to see if its ready to move to the main space please.

--MaggieMaloney11 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi MaggieMaloney11, I'm a little confused by the scope of the article. Is this meant to be a spinoff of 1970s in sports that focuses on women or a spinoff of Women's sports? If so, then this should focus on sports by decade - ie, just 1970s or 1980s. I also think that this would be best to merge into the existing articles on that particular decade of sports. So basically, create a specific section that gives an overview for that decade in sports. I'd leave out the section about the 70s and 80s being a turning point unless you have sourcing that specifically makes this claim, as otherwise this can be seen as original research. I'd also not include the section that highlights specific people. While this section does have sourcing, none of them are sources that mention the person as being the most influential, at least not in this specific format. The issue here is that someone could argue that the list is fairly subjective - in other words, these women were chosen based on one person's research and opinions. Someone could argue that Mary Lou Retton was more influential in the 80s, for example, as she was an extremely well known Olympic gymnast. Another person could disagree with Retton being listed, stating that Nadia Comăneci is far, far more well known. I digress, but you get the point. Lists like that will always be subjective without a very good source that basically sets them up as a "best of" format. To be honest, it's fairly rare that you'll find something that will identify a person in this format that will satisfy most or all editors, so it's better to leave it out. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Jalynking1 (talk)

Hello.

I would like if you could read my article to make sure I can publish it. I also am not sure how to put my sources in. Thank you, Jalyn

--Jalynking1 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Jalynking1, you need to re-write this in your own words as your article content was taken verbatim from this website. All content must be written in your own words. I want you to take the training modules on plagiarism, as well as sourcing and citations, as they give a good overview of how to add citations, which is also what you'll need for an article. I've removed the content from your sandbox, as this poses a copyright issue as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from 14cemahoney (talk)

Hello.

I was hoping you could review my article just to make sure it is in line with what wikipedia is looking for. Thanks!14cemahoney (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

--14cemahoney (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi 14cemahoney, I've done some formatting to the page to help out some. By large this looks good so far - this just needs independent reliable sources to help show where the book is independently notable outside of its author. Book reviews and coverage in places like academic texts and journals are great for this sort of thing. Also, be careful with statements like "best known" since this tends to be seen as fairly subjective. It's best to attribute this to the people making the claim, as this helps show that it's not a blanket statement. On a side note, if you cannot find sourcing to show that the book is independently notable outside of Gaskin (ie, the existent coverage focuses more on her than the book) then a good alternative would be to work on expanding the article on Gaskin herself as it does seem like it needs quite a bit of work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help with citations

Hello Shalor, I could really use your help. I am trying to post my article updates to the Buddhism and euthanasia main page, but my citations do not accompany it because for some reason, the numbering for the citations is off in my Sandbox. I am not really sure how to resolve the issue and could really use some assistance. I was thinking of simply deleting the other citations to allow the numbers to correct themselves, but want to ensure that this will resolve the problem before I do it so that I do not lose any other information pertaining to the other citations in my Sandbox. Thank you very much! Jawner22 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Jawner22, I think that it was messing up because there were several instances of {{reflist}} templates. In any case, I've tweaked this for you. When copying over, make sure that both pages are in edit mode. As far as content goes, however, I am concerned over the last section since it comes across as your personal opinion on euthanasia - namely that hospice is preferable. You need to make sure that the article is neutrally written and that when opinions are in the article, that it's attributed to a specific person - in other words, the only opinions on the page should be from sourcing. I can see where it would be easy to add an opinion into it, given the subject matter, but just make sure to be careful about this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shalor, thank you SO much!! That issue was driving me crazy. Regarding my last section, although I do agree with the idea, all of the information within the section is from the sources I referenced. To alleviate any issues, should I simply reference the statement that hospice is a plausible alternative? I referenced the line after it, which is the same source that I retrieved the information from prior. I would rather not remove the entire section, but instead fix it. Thanks again! Jawner22 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shalor, I am attempting to transfer the information over from my Sandbox to the main page while both are on edit mode, but I am still having the same issues as before. Each time I paste the information to the new page and look at the preview of the page with the corrections, the References section keeps saying "Cite error: The named reference :5 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." The named reference number is always different, I think based on what number it is assigned in my Sandbox. Do you know how to resolve this? Thank you.Jawner22 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Jawner22 - I think that unfortunately the only thing you can do here is to re-create the citation. It sounds like this is something that's a VisualEditor issue. I'm not sure what's causing it though. The only thing I can figure is that there may be another source on the page that also begins with <ref name=":5">. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Responding to your message on my talk page

Hi, Shalor! I'm not quite sure how the personal talk pages work; I responded to your message on my talk page, but I'm not sure if you get a notification about my response, so I figured I should probably just drop a note here as well. Thanks! Jessicasener (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Jessicasener

• Hi Jessicasener! I saw it! I've reached out to your professor about this so make sure to check in with her. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Gsv82 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... I have drafted a potential edit to the Wikipedia article on Émile Durkheim, about his views on deviance. It is under the header "Potential Edit". I included the information I could find on his views on deviance, and have cited everything. How can I further improve this edit? Thank you!

--[[User:Gsv82|Gsv82}} (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC) gsv82

• Hi Gsv82, I made some slight tweaks for flow. The edits look great - the only thing that I'm hesitant about would be the quote. Quotes are used sparingly in articles and tend to be the most major quotes. They're not really used to make an impact, so to speak. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I included the quote because there seems to be a fair number of quotes on the Durkheim page, which is the one I'm adding my information to. Does this change your appraisal? Furthermore, do you think I should create a new subsection called "Deviance" for this information and any further ones, or try and incorporate it into another section? Gsv82 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Gsv82, I've thought of an alternative - moving the quote to the right and placing it in a quotation box. This should help with the misgivings I had since it shows it without making it the start of the section like it was previously. I think that creating a section for deviance would be good - I'd add it to the subsection Émile_Durkheim#Sociology_and_philosophy, akin to how morality and sociology of knowledge has a subsection. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Help Request from Cindy

Hello Shalor, I was wondering if you can help review a Wikipedia article I created (Black in Latin America). Initially I was thinking of using pictures from the PBS website, but after doing the training I don't think I can do that. Can you provide me any feedback on either the article itself or which pictures you think I should use for it? Thank you, Cindyand (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Cindyand, you're correct in that we can't really use any of the pictures on the PBS website - fair use will only cover an image for the infobox. On a side note, I added an infobox for the series so you can upload a single image for the infobox. I'd recommend that you add something that has the series logo on it. The DVD and digital release box art for the collected episodes would probably be the best option. As far as general notes go, IMDb and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source to back up details because anyone can edit these sites. You can, however, use it as a source for the artwork. Aside from that, I'd work on building a general reception section and if possible, a section that goes over the production of the series. A series that goes into more detail about the book (release date, publisher, reviews for the book, etc) would also be good as well. I think that this is an excellent start to the article and it has a lot of potential for expansion, so you did very well here! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it! Cindyand (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Amitc008 (talk)

Hello Shalor

I was talking about my sandbox. I published my work into my sandbox, but I have had difficulty before not being able to save my work. Let me know if you see it. And, thank you for all your help.

Much Obliged,

--Amitc008 (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Amitc008 - so far this looks good. My two main notes would be to add sourcing to back up claims and to also be careful of time related terms. For example, the word 'today' is something that may be accurate right now or even for the rest of the year, however it may quickly become outdated later. You could probably just leave the word today off and it should be fine. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Krislakatos (talk)

Hello.

I need help with contesting a speedy deletion nomination. I published the page I was working on before it was completed.

--Krislakatos (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Answered on student's talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Viempress (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... Good day, I am unable to view the article I've edited in sandbox. Can you help me find it?

--Viempress (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Viempress - did you make any edits while not logged in? If you weren't, then the edits would be made to an IP sandbox. There's no true way to find the information other than logging out and seeing if your information is in that IP's sandbox. If you don't see it, then unfortunately there's not really much that can be done to find it. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Shalor (Wiki Ed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viempress (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Good day, When I look at the edits logged out I am able to see that I've edited the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viempress (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Viempress: Hmm... sounds like it was that you edited while not logged in. Can you send me a link to the content you see while you're not logged in? I can fix this - I just need to know where the content is. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help from Kaitlin 121 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shalor,

I am trying to add to the Transfeminism wiki page under the section I was originally editing- Inclusion in mainstream feminism. I recently added a few sentences, but they were reverted. This is what I wrote:

Other Radical feminists, according to Michelle Goldberg, refuse to include trans women on the basis of choice. They had a choice in the way society viewed them, a choice in their gender identification, and a choice no other woman typically experiences. Goldberg argues that cis women do not have a choice on how society views them. They are constantly seen as inferior in a patriarchal world. By demanding acceptance, trans women further express this sense of male entitlement.

I was hoping you could help me reword them so they will be accepted by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you! Kaitlin 121 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Kaitlin 121 - I saw your posts at Mathglot's talk page. I think that he brings up good points - I also think that since this is a content dispute, it should get brought up on the article's talk page so it can be discussed more broadly. In any case, I think I see his point: the source discusses the difficulty transgender women face trying to access feminist spaces (specifically radical feminist spaces). The article doesn't identify the women as transfeminists, so placing it in a section about acceptance of transfeminists would be seen as original research. Essentially, a transgender woman who identifies as feminist wouldn't automatically be considered a transfeminist. Feminism and transfeminism deal with similar topics, but the two are distinct enough that a person could identify with one but not the other regardless of their gender status. What this means is that unless the source specifically uses the word transfeminist, we shouldn't automatically connect the two even if the connection makes sense. This is actually a fairly good example of how limited we are with what we can do on Wikipedia as far as summarizing goes.

That said, I do think that this would be an excellent thing to add to the article on radical feminism, as was suggested by Mathglot. An alternative could also be to find another source that specifically refers to transfeminists being denied entrance - I can help do a quick search, if that helps. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Nicolewright24 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with ensuring my article is impartial (not making an argument and just stating the arguments related to censorship and information ethics). I also need help ensuring my article isn't including vague pronouns and is factual. All of the content in my sandbox is what I am intending to add to the information ethics page.

Thanks for your help in advance!

--Nicolewright24 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Nicolewright24, I'll respond on your talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Precioussmith815 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

My use of language for the current paragraph that's placed in my sandbox.

--Precioussmith815 (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Precious

• Hi Precioussmith815, how will this be added to Social_media#Political_effects? I'm not sure how to review it offhand. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Tammy wang (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

phrasing and trying not to incorporate opinion-- also understanding what format to go with- what information should I put under the titles

--Tammy wang (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Tammy wang, one of the first things that stood out to me was that the information was all unsourced - this should have in-line citations to help back up the claims. Also, make sure to avoid terms like "easier" since these are subjective to the reader. Other than that, the main thing is just to look out for sentence format. It's not that the content is really opinionated, it's more that it just doesn't flow like it should. I'll do an example re-write for one of the sections in your sandbox to give you an example of the typical formatting/phrasing on Wikipedia. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Michelle Wang98 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with "Multimedia and Social Work" section. Can I have some suggestions of this paragraph I wrote and how to expand based on it? Thank you very much!

--Michelle Wang98 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Michelle Wang98, one of the biggest things I can recommend is that you add in-line citation while you're writing, as it makes for less work later on. Also, be careful of using studies since they're seen as primary sources for the claims and research created by the writers. Even if the study was published by a peer reviewed journal, the review only checks for major errors and for any signs that the study isn't legitimate - they don't actually prove that the information is correct. So essentially, to use a study you need a secondary source that covers the study in a way that helps show that the claims/research is correct. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Glaudeman040 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with making sure everything is up to Wikipedia policy and sounds like it would fit in with the writing standards!

--Glaudeman040 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Glaudeman040, the draft looks good! My only note would be to try to include more general information instead of specific examples if possible, but I know that this isn't always available. I get the impression from your overall work that if this was available you would've included it, but I wanted to mention it just in case. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Mdiallo101 (talk)

Hello.

As a bit of background, I am planning on adding this into the Wikipedia Page titled Journalism under the section titled Professional and Ethical Standards. I want to add my own subheading titled Codes of Ethics seeing as there is no such thing on the wikipedia page. I currently need help making sure that my sentences are concise and clear to understand. I also need help knowing if the information I provide on using a universal code of conduct is clear and easy to follow.

Thank you.

--Mdiallo101 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Mdiallo101, thanks for clarifying - this looks great so far! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Aagodoy (talk)

Hello.

I would like you to look at the document and provide me with your input and whether it follows wikipedia's criteria. I mainly would like another pair of eyes to look through it and provide me with feedback. thanks

--Aagodoy (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Aagodoy, this is very good so far - it just needs to be tweaked slightly for flow, but that's not something that would keep you from posting it live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

question about the article I am working now

Hello, Shalor, I got your message on my talk box, but I am not sure what I should do. Did my article alive now? Thank you.

Danica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwang0821 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Dwang0821, the article was redirected to formal fallacy, as there was already an article by that topic that had a lot of the same information. My recommendation would be to see what information can be merged from your draft into the existing article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from isha9 (talk)

Hello! I was wondering if you could take a look at my draft of everything I want to add to the Internet in Myanmar page on my sandbox (some of which is already live on the page). Also, do you have any ideas of other sections I could add to? (as the article itself has the note at the top saying that it needs to be updated as of Dec 2013). Thank you so much! Isha9 (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Isha9, I'll reply on your talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Mckenziedunleavy (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

General Feedback

--Mckenziedunleavy (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Mckenziedunleavy, one of the biggest things I saw was that the draft was unsourced - it definitely needs citations to back up the claims. Also, in the branding section I'd avoid going into so much depth about three brands, especially since it looks like you're using a single source for this. The section shouldn't really focus on specific companies - rather, it should give a general overview of digital rhetoric in branding. These three examples only really tell us about digital rhetoric as it applies to Coca-Cola, Southwest Airlines, and the U.S. Army, as opposed to how it's used/present in other companies on a continental or global scale. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Elizabeththies (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

--Elizabeththies (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Elizabeththies, how can I help you? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, I was hoping someone could look at my language to make sure it is clear and concise and that my writing in impartial. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeththies (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Elizabeththies - my main notes are this: make sure that you look at information ethics on a global scale and avoid focusing too specifically on its application in the United States and English speaking countries. I also noted that you used euphemisms and turns of phrase in your draft, like "on the rise" and "prime". These can sometimes make a draft feel too informal or even a little too much like a persuasive essay, like it's leading someone to a specific point. It's also not always clear to the reader what this means, particularly if English is not their first language. The same thing kind of goes for the phrase "in a post 9-11 world" - that has a fairly specific audience and scope. It's really only applicable for United States audiences, as other countries that have experienced terrorism attacks may have already had heightened security. A reader from those areas may wonder why 9-11 is cited as the turning point, when other countries have had large attacks against them in the past. (See terrorism in the United Kingdom for an example.) This doesn't mean that you can't mention 9-11, just that it needs to be tweaked. Something like this:

Warfare has changed for many countries in the 21st Century. After the events on 9-11 several changes were made that directly impacted civilian privacy, which have raised ethical concerns.

It's not perfect, but it doesn't highlight 9-11 as the biggest turning point, which is the main thing that needed tweaking. (Feel free to use or adapt that as you like!)

That aside, I think that you made some great choices with your topics and the sourcing looks sound - most of this is just tweaking to make sure that it takes a global view and for tone. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Juliaxav (talk)

Hello.

I need help with making sure my edits conform with Wikipedia's guidelines, please! Thank you for your help.

--Juliaxav (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Juliaxav! One of the things I noticed is that there are some statements that came across as original research, at least in the way they were phrased. Original research would be any claims or theories that you came up with that isn't explicitly stated in the source material. The easiest way around this is to attribute the claims to specific people. With studies, make sure that you have a secondary source that covers the study and helps validate the claims therein. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for the claims and research, so the secondary source helps resolve concerns about the info being incorrect or so on. The study being published in a reputable journal doesn't really resolve these issues, as the journal doesn't verify anything - they just look for glaring errors or if it's obviously false. Google Scholar has some journals that cite it, so it shouldn't be too problematic to find a secondary source. Other than those notes, this looks great - I think you have done well here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Foggca (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... Reviewing my edits on the specific court cases section on the Academic Freedom wikipedia page. Specifically I have some questions about what I consider extraneous information in the second to last paragraph about the atmosphere of Canadian colleges rather than individual court cases. I was wondering if it is alright to move the information around, or at least cut it down to be more relevant to the section it is in.

--Foggca (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Foggca, your edit to the page is good - just make sure to add sourcing while you're adding new content. With the content about Canadian colleges, I think that it would be good to move it - you could probably move it into the section "Academic freedom for academic staff", since it would fit from there better. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Chrisdelima (talk)

Hello.

I need help with making sure that my edits match Wikipedia's standards. Also, whether or not I should add more information within the introduction.

--Chrisdelima (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Chrisdelima! So far this looks good - I did note that one of your sources isn't showing up and instead is just listed as "Shibboleth Authentication Request", so it needs to be fixed. As far as more information goes, I don't think that it really needs to be expanded more. If you have the time for it, I would recommend working on the other sections so that they can go from list to prose format. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Anyadavi (talk)

Hello.

I need help with getting some general feedback on my edits so far! I am trying to add and start some new sections on the Media Ethics wikipedia page so that more research can be published on the article! INstead of focusing on a specific section, I found areas that have not been written about. I am curious to see if I am on the right page or not!

--Anyadavi (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Anyadavi, it looks good so far - just be careful of words like "many". Those should only be used if the source material uses them - this looks good so far. Other than that, this looks good! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Piatigda (talk)

Hello.

I need help with making sure my article edits are up to wikipedia standards in sandbox. Thank you!

--Piatigda (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Piatigda, I noticed a few things - the first is that there are a lot of sections without sourcing. All claims - especially those concerning Trump, controversies, and politics in general must have a lot of independent, reliable sources to back up the claims. With the topic you have, you should have a source after every major claim, like the opening sentence about OWS and Wikileaks.

The second is that you've used studies to back up the claims. This is an issue because studies are primary sources for their research and claims, so you'll need a secondary source of some type to help verify the claims and show that they're major enough to go into depth about in an article. The studies being published via reputable outlets doesn't really mean that the information is absolutely correct per se- journals and editorial boards are typically more used to make sure that everything looks correct and doesn't have any obvious issues or errors. You can use studies, but you have to show where they've had some sort of coverage elsewhere, as this would help verify the claims and also show its importance.

Also, this seems to take particular notice of trending topics as far as the United States goes - other areas are mentioned briefly but the focus is primarily the United States. This needs to take more of a global perspective. It also focuses specifically on politics - since this is going to be a general section, this should cover the whole general spectrum of what trending topics covers. If it's going to be added to the existing content, the content may need to be summarized more since you don't want politics to dominate the entire section. What you have is definitely interesting, so a lot of this is more just looking at specifics. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Precioussmith815 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

Review my sandbox for posting

--Precioussmith815 (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Precioussmith815 - where is this going in the article? Also, this will need more sourcing to really help back up claims. This also seemed a little bit too much like an essay - make sure that all major claims are sourced and that the writing style is more formal. I hope this helps - let me know if you have any questions or additional input. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Improving Section

Thank you, I received your message and will fix my section on Transgender Youth by adding in additional sources and making the language more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacSwade (talk • contribs) 16:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks MacSwade! You have some great information there, so a lot of it will just be tweaking for tone and reviewing the writing styles. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Brigade Media

Hi Shalor. I always seem to pester you when I come across something problematic, so why should this time be any different. Anyway, this appears to be the work of one of the student projects your helping to advise. It was moved directly to the article name space by its creator, which I don't think was a wise move. It would've been better for this to have been submitted via AFC in my opinion because I think it's right now at risk of being AfD or CSD as being too promotional, etc. While I think it's a good-faith attempt, my suggestion would be to move it back to the draft namespace. In addition, as I may have mentioned before, the talk page is full of peer review comments, but these appear to from other students in the same course who are more than likely not familiar with things like WP:ORG and other relevant policies and guidelines.

FWIW, I understand these students all mean well, but it would be better for AfC reviewers to look at these drafts first since they can better ensure that the most basic Wikipedia standards are being met. Some of the formatting corrections I made were quite basic and things that an experienced editor would probably notice right away, but things that these kids might not have seen yet. Maybe you can discuss this with the creator and ask them to submit it via AfC instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Marchjuly - I don't mind you messaging me at all! I remember reviewing this and warning the student about the draft's issues, but it looks like they haven't resolved them all. I'll take a look at this and give the student more specific feedback and/or try making some tweaks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Shalor. Is it common to still display the {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment}} on an article's talk page after the article has been moved to the mainspace? While I kinda understand that part of these class assignments is for student to review their classmates work, that template might give some the impression that these students are the "official reviewers" of the article; this might discourage others from being bold. Also, not sure if the talk page comments left by these student reviewers are still relevant once the draft has been added to the mainspace. They seem to be sort of like AfC reviewer comments and again might give others the impression that the talk page is for general reviews of the article. It might not be necessary to delete them, but maybe collapse them now that the draft is an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just want to add that Arena Electoral is another article which appears to have been moved to directly to the mainspace by one of the student editors in the same class as the one who created the "Brigrade Media" article. This one is also going to need quite a bit of clean up and probably should've gone through AfC so that it could be properly vetted. These kids seem to be creating articles about Internet companies that might not meet WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply from Jjgourley

Thank you so much for the message! I am actually working on a final project for our class, where I continue to add to Wikipedia! Thank you for the warning about paraphrasing! I will be more careful in the future. I really loved this project (both our class project and my final) and I hope to continue to edit and learn about Wikipedia. :) Jjgourley (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• No problem! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ted Taylor Article

Hello, could you elaborate on which sections you believe to be biased so edits can be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAP1985 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi RAP1985, here's what I've posted to Bigmikeyy's talk page:

The first is that the article is written with a favorable, praising bias towards Taylor and his work. Even if this is something that most people would agree with, the article still needs to be neutrally written. Avoid point of view/opinion terms and make sure that everything is as neutral as possible. The second is that the article reads a little like a persuasive essay, with the goal being to get people to see Taylor as relevant and in a positive light. An example of this is the sentence "Ultimately, it is evident that most of Taylor’s writing -- along with McPhee’s narration of Taylor’s viewpoints and suggestions -- is ahead of its time and still applicable today.". This is something that would be seen as subjective to the reader, as someone may disagree with this and the sentence is ultimately written to persuade the reader to see this point of view.

It's not a specific section as much as it's just phrases and some sentences like the ones above. I suppose if there's a specific section that I would say absolutely needs work, it would be the publications and work section. Normally Wikipedia tends to just list a basic bullet point list of a person's works like this: Francis_Crick#Books. The lasting impact of his work is better suited for the legacy section, which does seem to cover his impact in general. One thing to remember is that if anything sounds like an opinion, make sure that it's attributed or that there are a lot of independent, reliable sources that state this. Also, avoid words like "perhaps", as this is seen as more of an essay type word and can come across as original research - in other words, the perhaps makes it into the writer's hypothesis as opposed to it being something that was stated in a reliable source.

Other than that, the other sections just need to be reviewed. I do think that the article could be broken up into more paragraphs, as there are some fairly large blocks of text. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Nina Thompson (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... editing my Wikipedia contribution on police brutality to make sure it falls in lines with the expectations of Wikipedia (meaning that it is objective and unbiased, and that the sources I used are acceptable).

--Nina Thompson (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Nina Thompson, I'll respond on your talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Schendoa1 (talk)

Hello.

For my final, I'll be editing pages on Drag and Ghost Hunting!

--Schendoa1 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Schendoa1! How can I help you? One thing I do want to stress is that you need to have sourcing that explicitly states the claims you want to add to the articles. If it's not in a reliable source then unfortunately we can't add it to an article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Dams

Weather Control Dams (United States Army Corps of Engineers, 2004) Dam engineering for weather control can be traced backed to before current era but the engineering behind the dams have changed significantly. In modern day we have more resources and technology that allow us to create and design dams that can almost withstand anything. The United States Army Corps of Engineers have built thousands of weather control dams around the United States and each of their dam builds have changed depending on the landscape and required strength. For big cities the most common type of weather control dam to provide flood control are dry dams. Dry dams are constructed to only have running water through them in case of a flood cause such as rainfall for a long period of time. Most of the time these dams have no water. These dams are engineered in all different size and shapes depending in the capacity and flood control needed in each city. These dams are also built into the ground to keep the water below and protect the ground above it. Gravity dams are another type of dam used for weather control. While dry dams are there for emergencies and preventions. Gravity dams are needed in order for the terrain to be useable. Usually gravity dams are constructed to block off a river or some type of water flow in order to make a part of land useable by unflooding. The gravity dams are engineered not just for the water being controlled but also to account for weather that can flood the land again. Dams on the Environment (Mucully Patrick, 2001),(International Journal of Science and Technology, 2008) With the world moving toward preserving the earth and its environments dams can be helpful and harmful in accomplishing this goal. Hydroelectric dams is a perfect example on how dams can help in improving the environment. Hydroelectric dams are engineered to use a rivers water flow to make clean energy. The clean energy is made by using turbines that spin when the water is flowing from one side of the dam to the other. This clean energy helps preserve the environment by not having to burn fossil fuels or any other type of fuel to make power. While this may look like the solution to make clean energy for the world it has negative impacts on the environment as well. Any type of dam that restricts flow to a river causes harm to the ecosystems in the river which, leads to affecting the environment. That one ecosystems leads to a domino effect that moves on to larger ecosystems. This can become a major problem in different environments that depend on these ecosystems in order to live day to day. Brazil is having to deal with this issue because they are building hydroelectric dams in order to have sustainable power because they have many rivers to provide this water to power the dams. But they are seeing a major change in there wild life such as dying populations of certain species around these hydroelectric dams.

Dam Destruction (Terri Cook,2017)

When a dam is built it is going to be in that location for a long time. Recently dam destruction has been a major thing in the United States. This is due to the evaluation of the benefits to a dam compared to their environmental cost. Dams have been left alone even after they really have no uses because of the money cost to remove dams. It is not an easy process to destroy a dam that has been built to withstand strong forces. Not only are they hard to remove but in some cases dams want to be removed to restore and environment. This means that the dam has to be removed without any pollution to the river or harm to the wild life. This is a difficult task when the river is made from concrete or other strong materials. The destruction of rivers is more expensive than the cost it took to build them. The Elwha dams is an example of the cost it can take to remove dams and restore the ecosystems.

Work Cited

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. General Design and Construction Considerations for Earth and Rock-Fill Dams. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers.

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-2300.pdf

International Journal of Science and Technology. 2008. Influences on selection of the Type of Dam. Firat University. http://web.firat.edu.tr/ijst/3-2/(6)%20%20E miroglu%20civil.pdf

Terri, Cook. (2017, June 1). Dammed if you do…. New Scientist Ltd., 36-39. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=13&sid=cbf5468f-e14f-4f0d-991a-110350e5eb3b%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=123819973&db=aph

McCully, Patrick. (2001, Oct 4). Dams and Water Quality. Scilenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. https://www.internationalrivers.org/dams-and-water-quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ixta12 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ixta12, how can I help you? Did you want me to review this? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Andrianajohnson (talk)

Hello.

I need help with... improving my article

--Andrianajohnson (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Andriana Johnson

• Hi Andrianajohnson, the main thing I'm concerned about is that there don't seem to be any non-primary sources. What the article needs are independent, reliable sources that can help show where the park is notable. It can be a little difficult to establish notability for parks, to be honest. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Using this image

https://clipartuse.com/clipart/541851 I believe this image is usable on Wikipedia but I wanted to double check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacmoore311 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Isaacmoore311, unfortunately it looks like the image is most likely held under a non-compatible license. The DMCA page says that the images are copyrighted to their creators. The page itself doesn't specify what copyright the image is held under, so we have to assume that it's not usable. It doesn't specify if it can be used and adapted freely, which are very important things with Wikipedia as far as use goes. It would actually be better for you to create something similar on your own (depending on what you're going to use it for), to be honest. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Ahiredits (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shalor, thank you for reaching out to me and helping other students that edit Wikipedia. I would love if you could look at my sandbox for the changes I plan on making to the delegative democracy article. I'll be posting those changes today and it'd great to get feedback!

• Hi Ahiredits, offhand the edit suggestions look good! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

New article: help editing

Hi Shalor,

My students moved their article to Wikipedia from my sandbox today. Can you take a look? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Land_of_Open_Graves

We know that the references need tidying up, but I'm not sure how to do that.

I also couldn't figure out how to add the book cover image to the textbook.

Over the next two days students will be looking to link other Wikipedia pages tot he new article and making final adjustments to their language.

Drbgsu (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Drbgsu! I have something on adding book covers that can help! The citation formats look fine, however what I'm concerned about is that the article is entirely sourced with primary sources - that is, the book itself. The book can really only be used to back up basic claims that are explicitly stated in the work itself and some of the sections look like they're more of the students' interpretation of the source material. The summary section is also very detailed - typically with books Wikipedia only gives a general 3-4 paragraph synopsis of a book's contents. The more pressing issue, however is the lack of secondary sources (book reviews, journal pieces commenting on the book, and such) to back up the various claims and interpretations as well as show notability. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Aksheufe (talk)

Hello.

I think I need my sandbox reviewed before I can add changes to existing articles.

Thank you!

--Aksheufe (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Aksheufe, I'll respond on your talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from LingChen998 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with my editing. I am going to insert my paragraph under the uses of the podcast, subsection podcasts for students. I don't know if my writing is subjective enough for Wikipedia

--LingChen998 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi LingChen998, I've left you a note on your talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Dpepowski (talk)

Hello.

I need help with accessing my sandbox page. When I try to click the direct link from my assignment this week ("your sandbox") it brings me to the sandbox of my account but won't let me type anything. The page just says, "This is a user sandbox of Dpepowski. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article". I'm completely logged in.

What should I do?

Thanks!

--Dpepowski (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Dpepowski! Is it not letting you type even after clicking the "edit" button? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it just started working! I'm not sure what was fixed but thanks anyway!

Need help request from Devin7077 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with this project

--Devin7077 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Devin7077, what type of help do you need? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Here, and not here

Although on occasion it seems worthwhile, mostly I feel that it is a complete waste of time to discuss topics with students enrolled in Wiki Ed courses, especially when it's getting close to the last class before exams. AFAICT, students are not really here to improve the encyclopedia. Would love to see a statistic comparing the average total number of edits by Wiki Ed students in the six-month period after their course ends, to the average total number of edits by newbie editors who have edited for at least four months, in the six-month period following that. I know retention is low, and my data is merely anecdotal, but for students I get the feeling that that statistic may be zero, or close to it. Which maybe means I'm misusing my time. If we don't hear by tomorrow, I'm going to revert this edit at Transfeminism; I'm not going to clean up after them if it's complicated, I have better stuff to do. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• I still want to thank you for the work you've done so far - you've definitely gone above and beyond with a lot of articles. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhoda biblical figure

thank you for the respectful message concerning my edits of the Rhoda page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamColeEdwards (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• No problem - I know what it's like, being a new editor on Wikipedia. Something else I forgot to mention was that WP:TEAHOUSE is a really awesome place to get help at a moment's notice, at any time of day or night. This is a help forum set up for newer editors in general and while the board stays a little busy, this also means that there's typically someone watching the board that can help you. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

X in Pennsylvania

I have come across two pages doing npp tonight about a particular policy area in Pennsylvania and see that they both trace back to a Robert Morris class. The first one I left and monitored and has currently been PROD Property taxes in Pennsylvania the second one I moved to draft [1]. They both have some formatting issues with the lead which would be OK, but also read closer to a research essay than an encyclopedia article and as topic areas feel like they're really WP:OR. I see there are several other articles like this for the class and then a variety of legislative districts. I would suggest that those district pages are a better use of students time than the policy oriented pages. Time permitting I plan to circle back to those other topics in the morning but thought you might be able to help guide the students and or professor as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Barkeep49 - I'll definitely go take a look! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Conradbaer (talk)

Hello.

I need help with...

upload the video on my sandbox. I am struggling to upload a video. How can I do it?

--Conradbaer (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Conradbaer, the upload media extension of VisualEditor doesn't always work so your best bet is to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Your training module on this should give an overview, but definitely let me know if you have any questions! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Krich

Hello.

I need help with...

moving my article out of my sandbox and onto the main space

--Krich 15:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaylaRichardson (talk • contribs)

• Hi KaylaRichardson! Looks like you moved it - it looks good, my main two notes would be to be careful of sourcing since websites like Find a Grave aren't seen as reliable since the info is all user submitted and to also make sure that the article is neutral in tone. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from AshMillette (talk)

Hello.

I have a draft completed for a new theme subsection in the Gulliver's Travels article; the theme that I worked on is comic misanthropy. Can you please look it over and give me some feedback on whether or not the tone is neutral enough for Wikipedia?

Thank you, --AshMillette (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi AshMillette! This looks good - my only note would be to see if you can find other sources about this, especially ones that argue against it being comic misanthropy (if they exist) as this can help round out the section a little. You should continue to tweak the section but so far this looks good. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

-AshMillette (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help request from Bannie1026 (talk)

Hello.

I need help with my article I would like to add to the "Newark Police Department" page. Do you have any advice for me?

Here is the rough draft my article: History The foundation for the Newark Police Department dates back to 1681 when two men were appointed as watchmen to preserve peace and crime in the town at night. Eventually, these responsibilities extended to more individuals and a group of seven watchmen were appointed to the four watch districts in Newark. Once Newark became incorporated in April 1836, Mayor William Halsey decided to extend a notion to institute the "City Watch." The City Watch consisted of policemen who were responsible for patrolling the streets of Newark. In 1855, the watchmen were officially associated as the Constables and the Night Watch were those who kept watch at nighttime. In April 1857, the Newark Police Department was established when the municipal police replaced the Night Watch and Constables.

--Bannie1026 (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Annie

• Hi Bannie1026, I think that this is an excellent start! My only note would be to try and find more sourcing to help back up claims and to also see if you can find more details to add to the section. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannie1026 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References