User talk:Rmoli039
| This user is a student editor in Florida_International_University/IDH3035_-_Digital_Fairytale_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Rmoli039, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; 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) 20:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I have some notes on your draft:
- I made a tweak to one part, changing the "furthermore" to "They also argue that". This more clearly attributes the claim to the person(s) making them, so it doesn't come across like we're making the claim or argument ourselves.
- You have a study as a source without a secondary source. 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.
- The article already somewhat covers password managers in the main article, so just make sure to review the article to make sure that this isn't redundant.
Other than that, I think that you have some good work here and after fixing the source and just double checking for redundancy, this could probably be moved live . Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the help!
[edit]Hi Shalor, thank you for the help with writing my contribution! I wanted to ask about my addition to the Password page being redundant. The Password page makes a few brief references to Password Managers, but it does not describe them or explain them in any detail, nor does it provide any context to how they work or to segue into the Password Manager page.