| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because It is my first expirience in writing an article and I seem to mix up some things- 1.do I make referencing and links correctly, 2. if I connected the article to other links on Wikipedia, why is reffered to as 'orphant' and 3. what sort of article are called secondary sources? 4. how do I know which sources of info are perceived as unreliable? I would really appreciate some help.
Thanks, Nadia Mitro (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Nadia Mitro! It's lovely to meet you. As far as a first article goes, this is not too bad. When citing sources, we try and use secondary sources. These are sources that are not "first-hand". An example is if you claimed to your friend that you plan to open a business. Your claim is a "primary source", because you said it, and your friend's is a primary source, because they were directly involved. A better source to use would be something like a local newspaper that reported on it, or what someone who is not directly involved says. Another example is here: WP:PRIMARY. A secondary source is written by someone who's not directly involved.
- What is reliable? Well, that's hard. Imagine you are buying a car. The salesperson will tell you about the good points, hopefully truthfully. However when making your choice you probably want to consult some magazines that tell you about the cars. In your article there are a few references that are straight from the companies that make the product, such as press releases. These aren't reliable, because the company wants to portray their product as good as possible. A more reliable source would be another news organisation reporting on the event. A reliable source is not a primary source.
- I hope this goes some way to addressing your questions and wish you well on your wikitravels. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)