User talk:Cbettica65

Welcome!
Hello, Cbettica65, 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) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi, I have some feedback.


 * My first concern is that this topic is too specific for the general article on acoustics. For example, the page doesn't have a section on acoustics in specific locations - this is most likely because this has the potential to create an exhaustive list of locations. A specific topic like this would be better in the articles for the caves themselves, assuming that there's enough coverage to justify a section. I'm concerned that there isn't enough coverage to really justify this, unfortunately, as this is a very specific, niche topic.


 * The page also uses a study as a source. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.


 * This has issues with style and tone, as this is occasionally written in a fairly casual tone. You want to avoid phrases like "of course" since that is too casual for Wikipedia's writing style and also comes from the viewpoint of a single person as opposed to writing from a general perspective. Point of view statements should either be attributed to the person making the claim in the source material or it should be removed from the article. These are things that could be subjective to the reader, such as the term useful.
 * You also want to avoid original research such as "if... then/therefore..." statements. We can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in the source material and can't draw any new points or conclusions on our own.

I hope that this doesn't dishearten you too much - I just have these concerns with the section. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)