User talk:Bamcclure18

Welcome!
Hello, Bamcclure18, 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble with the Faith of Graffiti article. May I contact you for assistance? My email is Abigail.ledezma@mga.edu Ab1g81aL93 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * sent you an email you can ping me here or via email. Bamcclure18 (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft notes
Hi - I have some notes about the draft about substances poisonous to dogs:


 * First and foremost, make sure that the article establishes how this topic is independently notable of the section in the dog health article that covers toxic substances and needs its own article.


 * The treatment section needs to be re-written to better fit Wikipedia's style guidelines. Right now it's written as a "how to" rather than a neutral overview of treatments used - Wikipedia isn't meant to be a how to guide, so this will need to be changed. So for example, the section content could be re-written as follows:
 * If a dog has ingested a harmful substance veterinarians recommend safely collecting and bringing in any material involved, including any chewed or vomited material, as this can assist with determining what poison or poisons are involved. Rapid response is recommended and once at the clinic or hospital the veterinarian will... (insert material about what procedures are done by the vet)


 * Avoid any "you" or "we" language in the article per these guidelines. There are several reasons for this, one of which is that this makes the article seem too casual. It also presumes something of the reader.


 * Be extremely careful when it comes to sourcing, as not all sources are seen as reliable on Wikipedia. For example, NomNomNow is an e-commerce site that sells food services to individuals, so this poses an issue of neutrality - there's also a question of verification and reliability since it isn't clear what type of editorial oversight they use on their site or how in-depth it would be. Essentially the article could've been written by anyone and the page also specifically points people to a purchase link, which is an issue. You will want to be cautious of any site that sells a specific service.
 * It would be best to use academic and scholarly sources, as these will typically be the strongest possible sources. While this deals with canine health rather than human health, I would recommend reading over this training module since a lot of the same issues will be relevant.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.. it wasn't my intent for there to be a draft but only what is in my sandbox as I'm still working through the article. I will make updates based on each of your recommendations. Thanks againBamcclure18 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Seelye Source on FOG
I like your addition with this source, but it needs to be cleaned up a bit; there might even be a typo or two. It reads like editorializing. Where did you get the Seelye piece? Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The article was printed in the The New Republic. MGA nor GGC nor Gwinnett Public Library had copies going back to 74 so I did a trial subscription to The New Republic to get a copy. I'll review for corrections. I sent you a PDF Bamcclure18 (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Received. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Review of article
Hey Beth. I have reviewed your article. If you have any questions or want any more feedback, let me know. L Riley (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey thank you.. I can't find the feedback? Bamcclure18 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Go to here: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Middle_Georgia_State_University/Writing_in_Digital_Environs_(Spring_2020)/students. Find your name and click on "Sandboxes". You'll see a sandbox that ends with "Lizrileymga Peer Review". L Riley (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Very helpful to have someone else's eye!... I will continue to work on the page and use your feedback to correct and improve the article. Bamcclure18 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

== Reflective Essay ==

Through this course I have learned that Wikipedia can be a valuable source of information if the authors follow the Wikipedia rules of writing. Educators often state Wikipedia can not be used as a reference for any type of research. However, it should be explained that because no “new” information should be presented in Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia could be a great starting point for reference material on a topic. Again, this is dependent on authors following the rules of creating articles in Wikipedia.

By critiquing articles, peer review and creating/updating an article, this course has explained how to correctly create or update an article in Wikipedia. Balanced subjective information that is not intended to persuade the reader or introduce new information or opinions is difficult to create. Persuasive or argumentative is much easier to write as its easier to take one side or the other of an argument. It is also difficult to write without giving instruction or guidance on a topic. Leaving out the “how to” was the most valuable feedback from the Wikipedia editors as it was a ‘style’ unnoticed in creating an article.

The group project article was a difficult write. Mailer was not the best example of an individual regardless of his ability to write. Wikipedia not being the place to express an opinion about some of his questionable activities made the topic an excellent choice for practice of neutrality. My contributions were within the synopsis and analysis sections. The synopsis being much easier to write than analysis. It was not a topic of choice which made it more difficult as well. My individual article was much easier from the perspective of choice and finding information.

Overall, digital writing was well learned via Wikipedia. Discipline to follow the rules, consideration of the audience and collaboration with many authors is valuable experience for future opportunities in writing in digital environments. Bamcclure18 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I didn't see the instructions on your talk page until today. I followed directions from the assignment link from the class page. Here is the link to the article I created. Substances poisonous to dogs
 * Thank you. —Grlucas (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Substances Poisonous to Dogs has been accepted
 Substances Poisonous to Dogs, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Substances_Poisonous_to_Dogs help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.