User talk:Polymoog19
| This user is a student editor in Kent_State_University/Capitalism_and_Democracy_(Spring) . |
Notes
[edit]Hi! I think that you're likely working with Cdalfons, so see my notes here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Polymoog19, 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) 20:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! Before I give my main notes, here's a quick bit of a head's up about the page for Russia. Since Russia can be a controversial topic on Wikipedia, it's more closely monitored than some of the other articles on Wikipedia. As such, you need to make sure that any content you add to the article is well researched and as neutral as possible. If the material is removed, you need to discuss the removal on the article's talk page before re-adding it.
Now that aside, on with the notes! My main concern here is with the sourcing. One of the three sources you use here is a self-published website hosted by San Jose State University. It looks like it was written by a faculty member so that's a bit in its favor, but keep in mind that SJSU doesn't edit all of its faculty pages like this. You'd need to show where this site has been routinely cited as an authoritative, reliable source. Basically, it's just not the strongest possible source out there, which is what you'd really need for the Russia article. I'm also concerned about the RaboResearch page for the same reasons. The other source looks to be OK, but I'm a little concerned that it's a case study. That means that its research could be seen as a primary source for the claims produced by its authors, depending on how you use it.
Writing-wise, the work you have is fine. It's pretty neutrally written and to the point, which is very good.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)