User talk:Aaustin00
| This user is a student editor in University_of_British_Columbia/Women_in_the_Economy_(Winter_I) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Aaustin00, 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) 20:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I have some notes for you:
- Be careful of tone - it's easy for a biography of a person, especially someone who works in business and economics, to come across as a CV or resume if we're not careful. Make sure to avoid subjective terms - even terms like notable can be subjective to the reader, as one person may see another aspect of the person as notable. Words like "exciting" are very non-neutral and should be absolutely avoided unless we're directly attributing it to a specific person, such as quoting them or saying something like "John Smith stated that the research was exciting...".
- Avoid using euphemisms and the like when it comes to detailing what someone has done or experienced. This can pose an issue of clarity when it comes to ESL readers, but it's also something that can come across as too casual or even sometimes non-neutral, as it's common for marketing people to use this in their work. For example, the phrase "starting her journey" would be something you'd see in marketing prose. It's definitely a pretty turn of phrase, but it's just too casual for Wikipedia.
- The lead has content that should be in the career section instead - this should only have a general overview of the article.
- There was a lot of repeated content in the article, some of which was in the same section.
- Some of the sourcing didn't actually back up the claims - in order to be used as a source it has to explicitly state the claims it's backing up, as we can only summarize what has already been stated.
- This needs more secondary, independent sourcing to help establish notability.
I'm going to do some cleanup for prose and style. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)