Jackhallowell
| This user is a student editor in George_Washington_University/Public_Opinion_about_US_Foreign_Policy_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Jackhallowell, 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) 14:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Jackhallowell. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Jackhallowell/be bold, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Jack, I've moved this to User:Jackhallowell/be bold, but I share in CASSIOPEIA's concerns over the move. The article's title suggested that it would be something different and it's hard to tell exactly where this is supposed to go. If this is meant to go into an existing article, then you will need to add it there. However prior to that the section needs a little work. I would add more sourcing to back up the claims and to also tweak the writing, as some of it reads a little like a reaction or interpretation to the topic. Be careful of phrases like "despite", as those can come across as a reaction. With things like " hardline", make sure that this is explicitly used in the source material. You may want to attribute this ala "according to" or "has been described by X as", as the term hardline can sometimes be seen as a bit of a loaded word - it's sometimes used in a non-complimentary way, so it should be attributed just in case, even if the word fits. Finally, I'd replace the Forbes source. Forbes hosts blog content, which doesn't undergo any sort of true editorial oversight. The way to tell if it's a blog or something from Forbes itself is to look at the author's name - if it has "contributor" next to it, it's a self-published blog source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's something that catches a lot of people by surprise, so no worries about not knowing this. I think that anything published by Forbes staff is usable, FWIW, but so much of its online content is published by contributors that it's hard sometimes to find the staff content. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)