User talk:Andersonbriana4

Welcome!

Hello, Andersonbriana4, 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) 14:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation

Hi! I wanted to explain why I removed the citation you added to wog. There are two reasons for that. The first is that it's a mirror of Wikipedia itself - you can tell via the way it's laid out, even though the page itself doesn't attribute the work to Wikipedia. (Which it should- sites that don't do this are pretty sketch.) Wikipedia isn't seen as a reliable source because it can be edited by anyone, at any time so it can never be verified to the extent Wikipedia wants. The second reason is that aside from it being a Wikipedia mirror, the site had some issues with reliability. Its legal page says that they don't take responsibility for the accuracy of anything posted on its site, which is a huge red flag, and doesn't have any information on their editorial oversight. The page also has a lot of pop-up and page ads that are pretty sketchy, which is a pretty good sign that the site isn't going to be seen as reliable on here. Most places that are trying to be reliable want to give off a good impression to readers, so they want to make sure that their site and adverts don't contain malware or spyware (or give off the impression that they do).

Just wanted to let you know! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Tone of your contribution to exploitation of women in mass media

Hi Andersonbriana4, I think you should review your recent edits to exploitation of women in mass media#film to ensure that your tone is neutral, impartial, and encyclopedic. The last paragraph especially needs review and tweaking to make it conform to how an encyclopedia should cover this topic. Here are some specific suggestions:

• Watch out for editorializing.
• Word choice is really important. You say "the definitions of beauty for African American girls are held up against a fallacious standard of what beauty should be." I believe you could find a better word, such as biased.
• You should not talk about social media in this section; there is another section on social media in this article where such content belongs.

Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)