Jonahx11!
| This user is a student editor in Bowling_Green_State_University/Sexuality_and_Politics_(Spring_2019) . |
| This user is a student editor in Bowling_Green_State_University/Public_Opinion_and_Voting_Behavior_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Jonahx11!, 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) 18:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Transgender people in sports
editHi, I saw that you made this edit to the article on transgender people in sports, which was reverted by another editor. I wanted to explain why this happened:
- The first is that this is written like a persuasive essay. You draw your own conclusions, state your own opinions, and write as if you're persuading readers to see the topic in a specific light. On Wikipedia we can only summarize what has already been stated by others in the source material. It isn't about trying to get people to see things in a specific light - on here the articles should present a general summary of existing literature on a topic in as neutral a way as possible and let readers make up their own minds.
- Avoid point of view phrases like "good" and editorializing on a topic via statements like saying that someone is a good representative or not. The reason for this is that things like this are subjective to the reader. Some may agree, some may not, and some may agree with part but think that other people would be better examples. Essentially you should not include any opinions in the article unless you are specifically and explicitly quoting someone in the reliable source.
- I recommend reviewing other articles to get an idea of how Wikipedia articles should be written. The articles on Same-sex marriage in Spain, LGBT themes in American mainstream comics, Quagmire's Dad, and TransGeneration are good examples and have been rated as being some of the best on Wikipedia.
- You pasted this on top of the existing article content without trying to merge it into the existing content. When adding to an existing article you should be merging content into the article unless it's a case of an article needing a re-write.
- Keep in mind that the article should take a global perspective and not focus only on the United States.
- This lacks in-line citations, which are definitely necessary since we need to be able to tell what claim came from which specific source. You also only used two sources for this, which does pose an issue with undersourcing. However that said, the sourcing itself also poses an issue as well. Caldron Pool doesn't look like it would be a very non-neutral source and it also lacks information about its editorial and verification process. Bleacher Report is also problematic because they allow users to post their own news stories and content - the reason why this is an issue is because it makes it a self-published blog type source. Sites that allow users to post content typically don't give them any true oversight when it comes to editing and verification, as they only look to make sure that there is no obviously profane or threatening material akin to what you'd see on a forum board or social media.
- As such, neither source is usable as a reliable source. The best sources for topics like this would be academic and scholarly sources like books or journal articles like this one. Something like this should also be usable. You can use some news article, but it should be through outlets generally seen to be reliable such as the New York Times or Los Angeles Times. However also keep in mind that if you're looking to source medical information, you should use academic and scholarly sources.
I hope that this explains the removal. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)