User talk:MountainFoot
| This user is a student editor in Pacific_Lutheran_University/Comparative_Anatomy_(Spring_2018) . |
Hi! It's Julian. Nice to see ya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb1092a (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! It's Kayla from the Intertwine session. Nice to meet you!Kmcguiness95 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, MountainFoot, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've been watching your repeated additions to this article. You should be aware of two things when considering making changes to such a well-established article (a "featured article" has been through a 30-day public review by multiple editors; this followed the standard "good article" review for a shorter period led by a single editor).
Firstly, all additions need to be reliably sourced, which in the case of a science article means that you cite every claim made to a textbook or review article, which in turn will have cited multiple primary research papers. You should not attempt to add claims cited only to a research paper, and certainly should not be adding uncited claims of any kind.
Secondly, articles, especially those that have been thoroughly reviewed, need to be balanced in their coverage of all the topics they cover. It is no good having a brief line on the kidney, a couple of lines on the liver, a short paragraph on the brain, and an extensive essay on the heart: that should not be hard to understand. Reviewers have spent substantial time checking the content, style, structure, balance, and sources of good and featured articles, and you should not override their contribution without good reason. If something is wrong, then fix it and cite the change; if something major has been discovered and reliably cited (again, not just one research paper), then add it and cite it. But it is not helpful (indeed, it could be considered disruptive) to boldly go into barely-cited depth on a minor subtopic, and worse, to force other editors to revert your changes repeatedly. It might be wise, given the point that we have now reached, if you were either to choose a different article or to propose changes on the talk page rather than just trying to push them into the article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)