User talk:Clmoody1
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Alabama/Relational_Communication_-_online_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Clmoody1, 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) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]I have some notes for you, as mentioned in the email:
- This article has some original research in it, by which I mean conclusions, comparisons, and theories that you've come up with on your own, as opposed to only summarizing what was stated in the reliable sources. I removed the critique section since it came across as too much of an essay. Critique sections should only contain and summarize critiques that have been stated/written by authorities on the topic in reliable sources.
- Some of this may be due to the article being a little casual in tone in some places - be careful about this, as Wikipedia uses a more formal writing style than you may see in some academic and scholarly works.
- Be careful of wording, as some things can be subjective to the reader. For example, saying that something is heavily researched could be seen as subjective depending on the reader's point of view, as they may see it as less heavily researched than other topics out there. Something like this would need to be either attributed or be something that is widely held to be true by most scholars. It's generally better to leave things like this out.
- You should only bold the article's title and even then, only once. Headers shouldn't be bolded.
- A lot of content isn't sourced - all claims must be backed up with a reliable source that explicitly states the claims. I also noted that some of the sources used were studies.
- 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.
- As such, I'd look for more sourcing - secondary sources that cite the primary ones as well as non-study academic and scholarly sources.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, Clmoody1
Thank you for creating Parasocial relationships.
User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thank you for your new article on Parasocial relationships, but it largely repeats a previous Wikipedia article, and I recommend that the two be merged. See Talk:Parasocial interaction#Merger proposal.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)