Shannonk2799

Shannonk2799, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Shannonk2799! 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 Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Shannonk2799, 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) 17:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

LGBT social movements

Hi! I made a few tweaks to the article. First, I added a non-primary source for the Moovz app and secondly, I tweaked the phrasing for the second paragraph to show who was making the claims. Be careful when writing out things in absolutes (ie, that something is definitely true), especially when sourcing it to a study, as this may not be the case for all groups. Basically, the researchers who conducted the study likely pulled from a specific group of people that may or may not be representative of the entire population of white females, African-American peoples, men, or so on. It's best to say who made the research/claims and attribute to them, as this makes the edit less likely to get removed or contested.

That aside, this was a really interesting contribution and I'm definitely going to read that paper you cited - it looks fascinating! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Hi. User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) is actually the Wikipedia expert assigned to your class. You should get in touch with her. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Shannon - I took a look at the draft. One of the biggest things that stood out was that the content felt like it was written more as an essay and had some words and phrases that could be seen as an opinion. This is something to be careful about because even if an opinion is a common one, opinions shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article unless we're quoting someone. I also noticed that some of the people you mentioned in the sections were missing articles. While the absence of an article doesn't mean that the person isn't notable enough to mention (ie, the article may just need to be written), you should only include mention of people if them and/or their work has received coverage in independent and reliable sources, like newspaper articles, reviews, or academic journals or books. Avoid listing someone if their work has only been mentioned in self-published sources like blogs or they've only received reviews in places like Amazon and Goodreads, as these aren't considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia also doesn't count popularity as something that gives notability, so that's also something to be careful of. Also be cautious of awards given to self-published outlets like blogs and podcasts, as very few of these awards are considered to be the type that gives notability on Wikipedia. The same goes for specific topics or organizations. This is definitely something that will be frustrating, especially as some areas (like blogs, podcasts, and the like) typically don't get coverage in the places Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source.

I've re-written the section on blogs to kind of show what I mean by the above. The section had some issues with tone, as some of the phrasing was a little promotional. This definitely wasn't intentional, but it's something that you have to be careful about. Things like "lend their voices" should be avoided. I also noted that some of the outlets that were mentioned didn't really seem to have received coverage in secondary, independent sources, in specific the Tumblr blogs. I ended up reducing Tumblr to just a mention, as I didn't see where either of the blogs that were mentioned received coverage in independent and reliable sources. I also kind of tightened the section some. Be careful when you mention accomplishments of specific people, as these sections are supposed to be an overview and you need to make sure that you show how it's specifically applicable to this particular topic. For example, Mock getting on Time's list is important to mention because the designation was specifically about top influencers on the Internet. However by extension you also mention that McKenzie won an award but this seems to be for one of her books and not her work on the blog itself per se, so it wouldn't really fit in the section in the way it was written. It's honestly a tricky little dance with stuff like this sometimes.

In any case, other than the issues with sourcing and tone/style, the content looks otherwise OK. Once you get that stuff fixed (it's mostly something that would take some light searching and re-writing) you should be able to move it to the main article.

Let me know if you have any more questions - I'm always here to help! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging M LeFort and Dane Cruz, so they can see this note. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)