User talk:Cambernk

Welcome!
Hello, Cambernk, 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) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi, I have many notes for your sandbox draft. It looks like you tried moving it live and moved it instead to a page for a user that doesn't exist. This, along with it reading like an essay, is likely why it was tagged.


 * This comes across as too much of an essay. It also jumps around a lot, making it kind of difficult to really get a good cohesive idea of the topic. It jumps from a definition to information about it in 2015, and is kind of hard to understand. Here's what I would recommend having as far as content and layout goes:
 * Lead: should give a general overview of the article without going into too much detail.
 * Background/history: should give the history of the term. When was the code of conduct created? Who came up with it? Who practices it? What is it?
 * Religion/belief: Is this part of a religion? Or a belief structure? The existing article on the topic makes it seem like more of a spiritual/ceremonial thing.
 * Modern day application or movements: This should cover how it's applied in modern day.
 * Scholarly discussion/critiques
 * This is a general overview, but it's the basics of how an article like this would be laid out.


 * This has a lot of hotlinks within the article - this should be avoided for several reasons. The first is that this can sometimes be seen as a bit promotional, as it's directing people to specific sites and people. It's very rare that a hotlink really should be within an article.


 * Avoid using social media as a source. The only time this should generally be used is in articles that are about a specific person or organization/business and we're using it to back up a quote or claim that someone makes. It could also be used in articles about a creative work, however those would also still be used to reference direct quotes by someone officially involved in the project. Other than that, in order to justify using something as a source we would need an independent, secondary source that shows why the given social media link is relevant to the article. Keep in mind that while organizations or specific people may be related to a topic, this doesn't necessarily mean that they are considered to be noteworthy enough to cover in the article. Independent sourcing is needed for that.
 * This guideline also applies to organization and official websites, as not all organizations or official websites for an individual would be seen as reliable sources or directly relevant per se. To use an example, an organization could protest global warming but their website wouldn't necessarily be seen as a reliable source or relevant just because they're associated with the topic. If they're really the most notable organization or person to the topic, then we need secondary, independent sources that discuss them in relation to the topic to really justify any sort of inclusion and even then, the expectation is that the social media or official websites would be unnecessary since the independent, secondary reliable source would already have the information. On top of that, the link would have to explicitly back up the claim as well by stating the material in question.


 * Keep in mind that we can only summarize what is explicitly stated in the source material. If the source doesn't mention kapu aloha then it would almost guaranteed to be seen as original research to link the source and its contents to the specific topic.


 * Staying on the topic of reliable sources, also keep in mind that not all sources are reliable. Self-published sources are rarely going to be seen as reliable unless they're routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources, especially academic and scholarly ones. The thing with self-published sources is that generally anyone can create one - this is why it's best to stick to scholarly and academic sourcing, to be honest - most of the stuff brought up in a Google search won't be usable.

I hope that this helps - there's more, but this should be a good start. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)