User talk:Hazelwoodb
| This user is a student editor in Arkansas_State_University/ENG3053_Digital_Writing_(Spring_2018) . |
Wiki Loves Food
[edit]
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grant success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Hazelwoodb, 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) 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Stop Clickbait
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Stop Clickbait requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi Hazelwoodb! I wanted to leave you some notes. It looks like your article was deleted because it didn't show how the topic was notable. Looking at your draft, the article had several issues, which I'll go into below:
- The article should be more specifically about the movement. There's already an article on clickbait, so there's no need to rehash it in the article. Even if it's short, the article should really only cover the movement. While this isn't about an online movement, the article about the SF Signal is a good example of a short article layout. This brochure on editing Wikipedia can also help.
- Make sure that this isn't a reflection or response essay to the topic. All claims or opinions should be attributed to a specific person.
- Don't use blanket statements - these are typically subjective to the reader. For example, you made a blanket statement that the movement has reduced the impact of clickbait. This is something that could be debatable - it may be that the movement made a difference or it could be other factors such as the overall backlash towards clickbait. It's also debatable whether or not it's easier for people to avoid clickbait. Something like this really needs to be attributed to a specific person.
- Primary sources are fine to back up basic details, but they can't show notability and in general they should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, you use a Twitter post to source the claim that the movement has received a backlash. I don't know that this is necessarily a backlash per se, as much as it's just that 20 media outlets have blocked the Twitter account. Backlash generally happens on a larger scale and it's also a term that I wouldn't use unless it's stated in a source. I'd phrase this as more along the lines of "Twenty Twitter accounts associated with posting clickbait articles have blocked Stop Clickbait's account since its launch." However even then, I probably wouldn't mention this without a secondary source.
- This needs more secondary sourcing, such as news articles. You have some in the article, but they have some issues. The Atlantic doesn't mention the movement as far as I can see (so it can't show notability), Bored Panda doesn't really go into depth (and has unclear editorial oversight), and The Chive is known for posting hoax content (as a joke, but still) so it's not really seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia. 9News is OK, but it's also local and local sources tend to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia.
I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)