User talk:Ilikesleeping1
| This user is a student editor in George_Washington_University/UW1020_M82_(Spring) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Ilikesleeping1, 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) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Hi, I have some notes for you:
- I'm assuming that this is going to go in the article internet celebrity? I wasn't quite sure.
- This has more of a conversational tone than a formal tone, so this needs to be edited to be more in-line with Wikipedia's style. My recommendation is to look at other articles (even if they're not on a similar topic) and see how they're written.
- Avoid making subjective statements, as these can differ depending on the reader. The only time they should be in the article is when they're clearly attributed to a specific person or organization, marking it as their opinion.
- The section title (The Rising Phenomenon of Internet Celebrity) is a little too much like a paper title. Since this deals with the history of the phenomenon, I'd instead label the section "history".
- We can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in the source material. It looks like you've drawn your own conclusions based on source material and drawn points between sourcing to make new research, which is considered to be original research and should be avoided.
- Quotes need to be attributed to the person making them.
- One of the sources is a study. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.
This just feels like it's too much original research. I think that it's a good idea to have a history section, but this needs more work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)