User talk:Krasmussen010
| This user is a student editor in Gonzaga_University/COML_509_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Krasmussen010, 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) 15:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! Here are my notes:
- Avoid the use of the term "recent" or similar terms in articles whenever possible. The reason for this is that it's a dated, vague term and one that can quickly become outdated. Also, it looks like it's being used in the lead section to refer to research from the 90s, which wouldn't be seen as recent. If it's being used to refer to the source, which is from 2010, keep in mind that a lot changes in technology in the span of only 2-3 years or even a few months, so eight year old research would still be unlikely to be seen as recent. It's better to specify when research was undertaken and by whom, such as "Research conducted by This Person in 2010...". This brings up a second note:
- You need to have a secondary source when using a study. The reason for this is that studies are seen as primary sources for the research and claims held within, as they're written by the person(s) who conducted or was otherwise involved with the research, or the study is based on their experiences. You need a secondary or tertiary source that backs up the claims and, if mentioning a specific study, cites or heavily mentions the study. I know that some of the sources here are ones that were already in the article, but it's still something to keep in mind.
- With lead sections, keep in mind that this is meant to be a brief overview of the article as a whole. Anything that is in the lead should already be in the article and content in the lead should not go into too much depth. You may want to turn some of the lead into a subsection.
- Finally, make sure that you avoid writing in a persuasive or argumentative tone. Examples of this would be using an "If... then..." type of style, such as using the word "thus". The reason for this is that writing in this style makes the content seem like an original research essay as opposed to summarizing content that's in the sourcing. I'm not terribly worried about this since it's not a huge problem with your writing, but I wanted to give you a head's up about this.
I think that you're doing a fine job so far - a lot of editing on Wikipedia is getting used to the differences in writing styles and what sources can be used, so I think you're progressing nicely. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)