Alitsana
| This user is a student editor in George_Washington_University/Public_Opinion_about_US_Foreign_Policy_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Alitsana, 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) 17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Foreign policy of Trump administration
editHi, I noticed that you posted some content to the above article. I've removed it for now, as I have a few concerns and the article is one that's held under discretionary sanctions. What this means is that the article is one that's very controversial on Wikipedia (as is just about anything Trump related) and as such, the article has to be written in a very specific format and needs the best possible sourcing.
I'm concerned that your addition came across as having a specific opinion on the matter, specifically a disagreement with Trump's administration as the sourcing looks to be entirely critical towards their action. With sourcing you also need to make sure that the sourcing wasn't specifically picked to further this opinion. I also noticed that some of the sourcing was the type that wouldn't be considered reliable on Wikipedia or would be seen as weaker sourcing for this topic. For example, PollingReport.com isn't really a great source for a topic like this because poll data is a bit tricky. Responses can vary depending on who is doing the polling (Fox News is a classic example of that) and a common concern is that interpreting poll data by itself is seen as original research since polls are seen as primary sources for the research - there needs to be some sort of secondary coverage of the poll data. It also needs to be covered in relation to the current actions by the Trump administration, especially as the polling numbers may be considered out of date as the polls were conducted in 2010, six years before Trump was elected in 2016. Tying it to the current administration would be seen as original research unless we have a source that mentions it in relation to Trump.
I'd recommend looking for academic sourcing on this if possible and to make sure that you show a wide variety of opinions. As it was written the content was fairly critical of the Trump administration's actions and while I know that there are a lot of people who disagree with what he's doing (I'm one of them), there are also people and organizations who support his actions so this should be included. I would leave out the polling information unless there's current sourcing to justify its mention. In general, make sure that the sourcing is the best possible sourcing (ie, good editorial oversight that can hold up under scrutiny) because this topic area is so controversial. I don't necessarily think that you will have to do a huge re-write, just remove the content about the polling information, add in a mixture of coverage so that it doesn't seem like you're leading the reader to a certain point, and edit the content so that it all flows well together. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)