User:Dhocine/Media bias in the United States

"Added new categorization of media bias for the introduction section"

- Although I did add new content to the introduction, based off of the Professor's analysis and Wikipedia's guidelines, I now know that some modifications need to be done to the introduction. For example, I should not really include sources in the introduction because that is not the right placement for it. I should also be careful introducing certain examples in the introduction because the the lead is supposed to capture the reader's attention, not give all the information away within the first few sentences.

"The contents references are from 2010-2015, so the sources are a little outdated. However, the sources are still good and provide good examples."

This is very helpful because it makes me realize that I need to add new content from the year 2015 forward. This is crucial when discussing a subject such as journalism because journalism and the media is always evolving, therefore a lot more information is present regarding media bias now.

"The content to me is very neutral for the whole topic. Although the article itself is about bias, the use of objective facts and examples makes the discussion of this bias non-inductive."

This is also very helpful because it shows me that I am on the right track regarding the tone of voice used in my edits. I was afraid diving into this topic that my voice my come across with some bias because this is such a controversial topic, however I tried to remain as neutral as possible, reporting only on the facts and not on my opinion on the matter.

"It seems that the references that can be linked are from the paper, and I cannot use the second and sixth references. The first timeout I showed here cannot be displayed"

This was probably the most helpful feedback because I was not aware that those sources did not open up. I will definitely go back in and try to fix them or find a new source to replace that link.

"I didn't find any grammatical or spelling errors, and added some historical materials (I'm more curious about the authenticity of the material because there are some links I can't open)"

Again, this is helpful because it shows me that there is room for improvement in the attribution of sources and to be aware of rechecking that my sources work.

"There are no images"

I do not know if the addition of images will be helpful here but I will consider it. Perhaps I can include an example of a media source that uses bias so that the reader can better understand media bias.

"Added some examples under the history section (but because the link is not available, I still have some doubts about the content), the explanation by category you added is a good direction in terms of introduction (I prefer to analyze this category with examples method)"

This feedback has been helpful, however I wish the editor was more critical and specific on certain things that can help improve my article. There is not much to really go off of here except for the fact that I need to recheck my sources. I wish more feedback was given on the content and specific examples of my content were used to explain what should be added or taken away to help improve the article.

"Hi! It looks like your additions to this article were reverted. I wanted to let you know, explain some of the reasons why, and also give you a head's up about the article in general. First off, the article is one that is currently held under sanctions. What this means is that the article is one that is more heavily edited and watched than others on Wikipedia, as it deals with a topic that it contentious. As such, any edits to the page must be written as neutrally as possible and you must use the strongest possible sourcing. It's also important to make sure that the edits fit into the page as best as possible and if the info is challenged, it must be discussed before being re-added to the article.

The material in question was removed by Rick Norwood, who wrote that "These two paragraphs may contain information of interest, but the first certainly is not important enough (or clear enough) to be in the lead, and both are not written in an encyclopedic style and contain grammatical errors."

''When it comes to adding something into the lead, it's vital to make sure that it's something major - the lead should contain the main points of the article, pretty much a summary of the article. It's also important to be careful when it comes to tone. You wrote "Fox news is also a news cite under a lot of heat for their biased viewpoints". Although you followed this up with a source and a quote, the issue here is that it's written like it's Wikipedia making the claim rather than it being something that was stated by the person in the source. With things like this it's better to state "Fox News has received criticism for its conservative viewpoints, which some detractors have criticized as biased.", as this puts the emphasis on it being something that another person or persons have stated, not Wikipedia itself.''

''I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)"''

This was extremely helpful because this Wikipedia expert allowed me to see that my biggest challenge here was editing the lead/introduction. I now know that content incorporated into the lead is supposed to be as eye catching and important as possible in order to engage the reader and keep the reader's interest. I will be removing what I added and possibly adding different content that can enhance the lead rather than confuse the reader. I also appreciate that Shalor made me realize that I may have used a tone in that one sentence regarding Fox news that could resemble some bias. I have to be careful with my wording especially when dealing with a topic like this that may be controversial.