User talk:1oromo

Hi 1oromo! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, 1oromo, 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) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Response

Hi, I have some feedback.

The first and most important thing that I want to impart is that you must take the training module on health and psychology topics since your content brushes into this topic area.

• Sourcing-wise, this needs a lot of work. Some of the sourcing is primary, such as the Tufts Now article covering research conducted at their university. It's also essentially a promotional piece, since Tufts Now is run by the University Relations Division. Another source is put out through an advocacy organization. This poses an issue because advocacy websites have a very specific interest/viewpoint in mind and their purpose is to put out work that supports that viewpoint. It doesn't mean that they're necessarily wrong, but they're not an unbiased source. Forest Research runs a similar issue, so they're not really an unbiased source either - at least when it comes to their website. The EEA is generally OK, but you have to be very careful on how you use it.

What you should be looking for are academic and scholarly sources, as these will typically be the strongest and often most neutral. Searching via Google or general internet search engines isn't really a great idea because the quality of sourcing that can be pulled up is so varied.

• I'm also concerned that some of the content you have is too closely paraphrased from the source material. The final sentence is too close to the sentence in the Forest Research source for comfort. Avoid doing this.

• This draft includes some non-neutral language via wording like "astoundingly" and as such, comes across as arguing a specific viewpoint. This is one of the biggest differences between Wikipedia and academic papers, as it's normal and encouraged to write persuasively in the papers, but not so on Wikipedia. It's something that a lot of people go through, to be honest, and is one of the biggest forms of culture shock on here, so to speak. It's very important that the work be as neutral as possible, as climate change is a fairly controversial topic. The work shouldn't come across as arguing one stance over another. For an example of how the content should be written, I'd review the Global warming article, one of the best articles on Wikipedia.

I hope that this all helps and that it doesn't discourage you too much! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)