User talk:NateFlauto
| This user is a student editor in Kent_State_University/POL_30003_Political_Economy_(Fall) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, NateFlauto, 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) 15:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I wanted to give you a few notes. It looks like you're still developing the topic and it looks like you have a good start here.
My main note is to just be careful of sources. Make sure that they are reliable. Be extremely cautious with anything that you find via an internet search, as the majority of these sources will not be considered reliable on Wikipedia. For example, the Forbes source isn't one that can be used since it's written by one of their community voice contributors. Anything on Forbes that's marked as coming from a contributor or a community voice member is considered to be a self-published source, as the stories don't undergo any true editorial oversight and as such, aren't seen as reliable sources on Wikipedia. If it was written by a staff member it would likely be different, however. Also make sure that you look into who is making the claims and ask the following questions:
- Who are they? Are they espousing a certain viewpoint or have any biases? Are they routinely cited as a reliable source by authoritative reliable sources (ie, scholarly or academic sources)? Do they have any editorial oversight and if so, how in-depth is it? Are they known for factchecking? Are they trying to sell the reader something? Does their website give off the impression that they would review their clients under a different standard than a non-client?
I would recommend that you look through your college databases to try and find sources, as these are more likely to be seen as reliable on Wikipedia. I hope that this note helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve Global megatrend
[edit]Thanks for creating Global megatrend.
A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:
As other reviewers have pointed out, the article's scope is incredibly broad, and as written appears to at least partially be composed of original research. I would suggest that the article either 1) be rewritten to focus on the concept of a "Global megatrend" with some of the existing content repurposed in an "Examples" section, or 2) move the content about each of the different megatrends you've identified to articles that are about those specific issues.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
signed, Rosguill talk 23:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! Here are some notes on the current draft:
- Is this meant to cover both megatrends and global megatrends (GM), or just GM? What is the difference between the two? Offhand the definition given in the article makes it seem like the two are the same. You may want to be more specific in what GM are compared to just megatrends. I'm assuming that GMs is the larger of the two and would encompass several megatrends on the country or even state level? A section that explains this would be a good idea. Keep in mind,though, that some of the content I found in a general search talks about megatrends as if it's a global thing.
- This jumps right into topics of Demographic Transition and so on, however an article about a concept should start off with information about the concept itself - what it is, the history of how the concept was discovered/studied, and so on. You would also have a section that discusses the differences between megatrends on smaller levels and on the global level and how the two interact with one another. You could have a section that goes over several common GMs, but I don't think that you need to have as much depth as you have here. To be honest, it's kind of confusing as to how these areas relate to megatrends. I figure that they're meant to be megatrends themselves, but this isn't clear and covering them like this makes the topic too broad.
- There needs to be no original research in the article. There are several statements in here that are unsourced or come across like it's a personal interpretation of the source material. For example, the statement "Humanity could destroy itself, yet there is a decline of violence and interstate warring." is unsourced, making it original research. Things like this must be attributed to the person making the statement. Also, keep in mind that we can only summarize what has already been stated in the source material. We cannot pull facts together and say that they tie into a specific claim or concept. The sources should ideally use the term megatrends or GM to discuss something, otherwise saying that something happening on a global level is a megatrend could be seen as original research.
- Be careful of sourcing. Avoid using primary sources like studies, as they need to have independent and secondary sources to back them up. Since this topic area will likely brush up against the area of health and science, I'd like you to take this training module. Even if you avoid these topic areas in your re-drafting stage, many of the sourcing guidelines (such as studies as sources) will be the same.
I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)