User talk:Antwaneek

WP:Reliable sources
Hello. Concerning the addition of your masters thesis to various article connected to the St. Francis Dam, please see the section of Wikipedia's policy on WP:Reliable sources about WP:Scholarship, in which you will find the following:


 * 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.


 * Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, 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 third 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. (emphasis added)


 * One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.

I have altered the references your added only to the extent of marking them clearly with "(thesis)", but you should consider whether your thesis meets the qualifications outlined above, especially since you are changing the long-standing number of 600 deaths to 400 deaths based on your research. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)