User talk:Louise Yang
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Louise Yang, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.
The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to it, please propose the changes on its talk page.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Home Lander (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Louise Yang
[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 Louise Yang 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 real person or group of people, 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 removed 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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Louise Yang, 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) 14:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Data culture
[edit]I've moved your article to your user space so you can work on it and get it up to the required standard.
Data culture draft
[edit]The page you moved to the main space does not cite any references. I moved it to this location as a draft - Draft:Data culture - so that you can bring it up to standards prior to moving it back to the main space. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Erin's Peer Review
[edit]Louise,
The structure of your article is great! It is clear and concise almost as though if follows a timeline. Everything you have included seems to be extremely relevant in my opinion, except for maybe a few too many see also's. Your grammer and spelling looks good as well.
I liked that you added the counter opinions, in order to be as neutral as possible ! There doesn't seem to be any framing or claims being made in any direction.
All of your supporting sources look reliable and relevant to the subsections of your article as well as up to date :) However, I didn't see any sources on the basic concept of data culture!
Great Work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErinPapadimitriou (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Data culture
[edit]Hi! I moved your draft to Draft:Data culture for a few reasons. The following are some notes I had on the draft.
- The article needs more/better sourcing. While you do have sources, many of these are primary and as such can't really show notability for this concept. They also don't really back up the ideas and claims in the article per se, which makes this original research. We can only have information that is explicitly in the source material. What the article needs more of are things like coverage in academic sources like scholarly journals and academic texts.
- Be careful with citing companies as examples. You should really have some secondary sources here to show why these organizations or businesses are mentioned over others. I'm not especially worried about this - it's more of an aside.
- Also be careful of persuasive essay speak like "it's important to note", as this can be seen as the writer appealing to the reader to see things in a specific light.
- Another element to watch out for is original research. I mentioned it above, but I can't emphasize enough that we can only include things that have been previously stated by others as we're more paraphrasing and summarizing what research is already available rather than make our own conclusions and research based on existing research.
This is still a very good draft - it just needs some work to help deal with the above issues. I did remove the section on future practices since it didn't really deal with the future as in what critics and researchers in the field have speculated will occur or will need to occur, which is what many will expect in a section like that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)