User talk:Amancalada

Welcome!
Hello, Amancalada, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  02:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Amancalada, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi. You need to cite your sources properly. I think it would be very helpful for you to enlist the aid of a research librarian. They could help you find much better sources than these. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your second source is an incomplete citation, so I don't know what it is
 * Your third source is a Wikipedia article, which isn't a reliable source (you can't use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia).
 * Your fourth source is a broken link
 * Your fifth source doesn't appear to be a scholarly source. It doesn't appear peer reviewed. There's no information on authorship.
 * Your sixth source is a book that's over 40 years old. That's less than ideal. A reference to a book that doesn't have page numbers or chapter information is very difficult to verify, so that's a problem too.
 * Your seventh source is class notes, so no, that's not a reliable source either
 * Eight isn't a scholarly source, it has no information about authorship, or peer review.
 * Nine is The Conversation, which isn't terrible, but as far as I can see, the main oversight provided is at the level of selecting people to write for them, not in actual review of the content. So while it's a little better than your average self-published source it's fairly low on the quality hierarchy.
 * Reference 10 seems ok, but it's also 20 years out of date and lacks page numbers
 * Reference 11 is a dissertation, which puts it in a similar position to The Conversation. It's reviewed by a doctoral committee, but isn't at the same level as a scholarly book or journal article - the reviewers are not independent.

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --Dcebbie (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)