User:Zippybonzo/Adoption Course

Welcome [adoptee name]!

This is your adoption course which will teach you the basics of Wikipedia, which will have some additional information if you want to specialise in a particular area. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I will get back to you. In most cases, you should get a message saying something like this: You have a new mentor, your mentor is Zippybonzo, say hi to your new mentor. If you don’t get this message, please let me know.

If you wish to skip part of the course, please let me know and I remove it.

Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Zippybonzo

This course is split into three sections,


 * 1) Article Improvement/Creation
 * 2) Utility Tasks (anti-vandalism, page review etc)
 * 3) Policies and Guidelines

Article Improvement/Creation
This section covers basics of wiki text and article editing, along with creating an article and the accompanying policies.

Wikitext
I won’t go into too much detail on wikitext, because it’s quite long and boring. But I have a table for basic formatting and there is a little test for you to complete at the end which will involve you formatting a piece of text using the material in the table. The end test will be marked out of 10 and a score over 4 will move you to the next section.

{| class="wikitable" !Effect !Input !Output
 * +Text = Output table.
 * Bold
 * Three apostrophes embolden text
 * Italics
 * Two apostrophes italicise text
 * Underline
 * Adding a u html tag underlines text
 * Strikethrough
 * Adding a s html tag strikesthrough text
 * Bold & Italics
 * Five apostrophes embolden and italicise text
 * Signature
 * Your user signature
 * Indent
 * A colon indents text by one
 * Heading (increase equals by heading number for smaller heading
 * Adding a s html tag strikesthrough text
 * Bold & Italics
 * Five apostrophes embolden and italicise text
 * Signature
 * Your user signature
 * Indent
 * A colon indents text by one
 * Heading (increase equals by heading number for smaller heading
 * Your user signature
 * Indent
 * A colon indents text by one
 * Heading (increase equals by heading number for smaller heading
 * A colon indents text by one
 * Heading (increase equals by heading number for smaller heading
 * Heading (increase equals by heading number for smaller heading

Heading 1

 * }

Subject Mini-Test
Please format the text below as instructed.

To italicise (in italics) you have to add two apostrophes around the text. (underline two)

To embolden (in bold) you have to add three apostrophes around the text. (underline three)

To underline (underlined) you have to add a u in greater than and less than signs like this and end it like this  (underline examples)

To strikethrough (struckthrough) you have to do the same as underlining but change the u to an s (underline change)

To do bold and italics (in bold and italics) you have to add five apostrophes around the text. (bold five)

xx/10

Questions
Ask me any questions below:

Sourcing
When sourcing use an inline citation, which you can do using the cite button in the visual editor or using the template, to form references see Help:Referencing for beginners. Say where in the page the information came from if the source is long.

Reliability
''This section of text is from the reliable sources guideline page. But in a nutshell, use sources that are secondary or primary if no reliable secondary sources are available, use material that has been vetted by the scholarly community as reliable. You can confirm the reliability by how many times it has been referenced in citation indexes. Don't use biased sources, try to find ones that are neutral.''


 * Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see No original research and Neutral point of view).


 * Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
 * Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
 * Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. The number of citations may be misleading if an author cites themselves often.
 * Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
 * POV and peer review in journals – Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.
 * Predatory journals – Some journals are of very low quality that have only token peer-review, if any (see predatory journals). These journals publish whatever is submitted if the author is willing to pay a fee. Some go so far as to mimic the names of established journals (see hijacked journals). The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources. If you are unsure about the quality of a journal, check that the editorial board is based in a respected accredited university, and that it is included in the relevant high-quality citation index—be wary of indexes that merely list almost all publications, and do not vet the journals they list. For medical content, more guidance is available at WP:MEDRS.


 * Preprints – Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv or bioRxiv, are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS. However, links to such repositories can be used as open-access links for papers which have been subsequently published in acceptable literature.

There are scripts to guide you, but typically you will have to read the actual publication to determine reliability.


 * User:Headbomb/unreliable - colour codes reliable sources with black being blacklisted, red being unreliable, yellow being possibly unreliable.
 * User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - adds small icons next to sources which have tooltips and they say things like government publication, unreliable, generally unreliable etc.

Referencing Test:
Add an reliable inline citation at the end of this sentence of your choice.

Reliability Test:
x/5