User talk:Dylanvanetta/sandbox

Rundown
Here's a bit of a rundown section by section, looking at the version that was added to the live article.

Scientific literature
The opening paragraph is a bit redundant to the lead section. The main thing to remember here is that since the lead already sets the stage as far as definition and general overview goes, you can go directly into the specifics.

This section as a whole is undersourced and there are several claims that really need to be backed up in the sub-sections, such as the claim "Scientific research has the goal to be published, it is not concluded until the results have been published.". If it comes from the Gastel/Day source, then this needs a page number so that it can be tracked down if someone so wishes. You should also likely attribute this to the source within the sentence, such as "According to Gastel and Day,...". The reason for this is that this may be subjective to the reader, who could argue that this is debatable depending on the situation. This kind of goes for any sort of declaration as to the purpose of scientific literature, as the purpose will be subjective to the reader. Some general statements will be fine, such as science literature's purpose being to inform on new findings, but make sure that they are very widely held before writing about them without attribution within the sentence. You also want to avoid wording such as "you", as the word takes on a direct audience and Wikipedia should be written more generally.

This is already pretty much covered in the lead paragraph. It's fine to have a section that goes over this, but you should go into a bit more detail than was given in the lead. This section is also unsourced, so this needs sourcing to back up the claims. Even if it seems like it's something very general and obvious, it still needs sourcing. You may want to look at the existing sourcing in the current article and see if any of those could be used to back up the claims.
 * Categories of Literature

This is a bit short and general. This is the section that was most like this section: Scientific_literature. If so, then I would include some of the information that was in there, such as language and preparation. You can summarize IMAD more than it is in the existing article, which is fine since there's already a general article on IMAD, but keep in mind that some explanation may be necessary. You may not need to include all of the formatting requirements (that are in the article currently) but it would be good to mention them. Essentially, briefly show how this guideline is special to scientific literature.
 * Structure

Types of Scientific Publications
As stated here, keep in mind that there are more types of scientific literature than just papers. The source that was used for the new content is specific to papers, as the author's goal is to specifically inform people how to write scientific papers. This doesn't mean that it's bad, just that you need to watch out for the sourcing you use. I'd actually recommend using this, since it looks to be a tertiary source and as such, summarizes secondary sources. The chapter does cover a lot of literature, so you can of course summarize this or use it to back up the content that's currently in the article.

Now what I'd recommend is that you use your section to instead supplement the existing content by making it into a subsection that covers specifically scientific papers, as the majority of scientific literature is going to be in paper format and will be what most will be familiar with. I will include this in the draft in your userspace to show kind of what I have in mind. I selectively included some of the material from the existing article's section that I could find sourcing for.

Peer Review
You didn't write this, so I'm not going to focus on it too much. I would suggest, however, that if you want you can source it. But since there are other areas to focus on, it's not a huge priority at this point in time.

Ethics
This is largely fine, most of the concern here is that this just needs more sourcing since it's only sourced to a single publication. There's definitely a lot of content out there that discusses this (such as this), so this shouldn't be a huge issue. Also make sure that while you aren't writing in a too advanced writing style, that you don't oversimplify too much.

History
This is a good start, but you want to make sure that you use plenty of sourcing and that you are careful not to oversimplify things. One of the main issues is that this is just very general and doesn't really say anything about some of the landmarks of scientific literature.

You should also be very, very careful about the source. I'd actually recommend finding a new source, as there are some issues with Visionlearning. The first is that there's just no true editorial oversight here. We don't know what type of fact checking the website does - it likely isn't wrong, but this leads into a second issue. The modules are made by people who signed up to the sight. The question here is how much verifying the site does of a person's qualifications prior to them being allowed to sign up and create modules. There's just too many iffy things here to really make this a reliable source. This would be a better source to use, as would this. You could also use the sourcing on the article itself or from Scientific_writing.

Retractions of Articles
This is something that isn't a bad idea, but it's backed up with a primary source which is problematic for the reasons I stated on the other talk page.

End note
I made some tweaks to your draft as I was putting these notes together, to give you an idea of what I was talking about and because I know that the idea of this can all seem pretty huge right now. With the tweaks, I think that the sections on ethics and types of scientific literature are largely ready to post live - I'd recommend posting them section by section as the areas become ready. I can help with this, if you wish - I'll try moving the section on the types of SL to the main article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)