User talk:Benjamin youngberg

Welcome!
Hello, Benjamin youngberg, 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) 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Climate engineering
Hi! I have a couple of notes for you on your edit to this page:


 * Only mark an edit as minor if it's something very small and non-controversial, such as fixing a spelling or grammar mistake. If you're adding content it isn't considered to be a minor edit.


 * This read a lot like a persuasive essay, as you were petitioning the reader to see things in a specific light. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in reliable sources. The material should be written as neutrally and factually as possible.


 * The topic of the section was also a little vague. It does a general discussion of the need to focus on problems surrounding the environment and the increasing urgency, but then it mentions that there are possible solutions out there. The issue with this is that it doesn't really pin down what purpose the section is meant to serve in the article. Keep in mind that the article already has sections on potential strategies (ie, how it can be fixed) and the justification of climate engineering (why it should be fixed), as well as sections on the general gist of what climate engineering is and how it came about.


 * The source you have generally looks to be fine, but it would be good to have more sourcing when adding a section's worth of content, especially since this is a fairly controversial topic. Having 2-4 sources is a good rule of thumb since it can better show a depth of coverage.

Finally, since this is a controversial topic, it's definitely very important to make sure that you're writing as neutrally as possible and using the strongest possible sources, in order to ensure that the article is as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. Since the material you added was removed, I wouldn't re-add anything without addressing the issues posed here and any that may get brought up by the remover,. To be honest, I would recommend that you re-review the page and look to see what you can add to an existing section. For example, the section on carbon dioxide removal needs more sourcing, so there may be material that needs to be updated or expanded upon slightly. It looks like there are other sections in the article that need sourcing as well. This is probably one of the more important tasks to do on Wikipedia since there are always more pages that need sourcing than people who can or will source them.

I hope that this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)