User talk:Ejps19

Welcom to the class Ejps19 Walter.l.smith (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)WalterWalter.l.smith (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Ejps19, 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) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
First and foremost, your draft was well written and you are off to a great start. I only saw a few issues within your draft. First, insure your citations are in the proper format. Also, I suggest creating a new sandbox for your draft. Walter.l.smith (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Walter.l.smithWalter.l.smith (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheena's Peer Review
Your draft was really clear and concise. I really liked how you simply and clearly explained types of pesticides and regulation section, it was straight and to the point and easy for me to understand the topics presented. In the Herbicide Volatilization section, I think it would help if could give a brief explanation on what Herbicide Volatilization before talking about the investigation just so the reader can have a understanding about it before they get into the case. Also I was just a little confusing by the references with the numbers. But other than that great draft!

Your contributed article, "Pesticide Drift First Draft"


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, "Pesticide Drift First Draft". First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Pesticide drift. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pesticide drift. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  PK T (alk)  17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note, the actual article title has/had punctuation that made this notice produce unusual results - I had to edit the standard template so that it shows an approximation of the actual title.  PK  T (alk)  17:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Review
Hi! I noticed that your work was reverted by, who wrote "Removed good-faith edit which was riddled with errors (spelling, syntax, punctuation, formatting), which removed existing good content, and which was entirely too focused on one incident with migrant workers. The scope of this topic is broader". I'm not as familiar with this topic area, so I'm going to see if I can get to take a peek or get Jessicapierce to give a bit more of an in-depth explanation. Offhand I can say that you need to be careful with sourcing, as some of the sources looked to be studies on this topic area. The issue with studies is that they're primary sources for the research and conclusions drawn by the researchers. Even if the researchers and organization that's conducting the research have a good reputation, you would still need an independent reliable source to vouch for the study. There's also an element of original research with using studies as a source, as there's the question of why an editor picked one source over another. Even if it's just a case of something came up first in the search results, this is a result of the editor choosing one study over another. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I received a response from Ian. His response was similar to Jessica's. He noted that the writing had issues in that it didn't fit Wikipedia's formal, encyclopedic tone and that it was too specific, as you discussed a single incident in an article that is about a very broad topic. This puts undue weight upon that incident, which is something that you need to avoid in articles, even if you intended the incident to be an example of a broader topic. This could also bring up a question of original research in the same way that choosing a study over others would be considered original research - the question is basically "why was this chosen over other, similar incidents?". You also need to be careful about when you place content, as the content was about general exposure and was in a section about volatilization, which wouldn't be the best place to put the content. Organization is very important on Wikipedia. As stated above, you need to be careful to avoid studies, especially because they may be extremely close to the topic matter, which brings up concerns about whether or not they're going into the study with a bias. Formatting was also something he noted, as the references were mangled and as such, removed a good chunk of your content. I hope this helps and thanks ! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll be glad to give feedback on this. There were multiple issues with the edit, as I mentioned in my summary. Had there been just one problem, I would have tried to work directly with Ejps19, or fixed it myself. But this addition more than doubled the size of the article, and all in all, there were just too many issues to keep.


 * There were many typos/errors in this edit, most of which wouldn't be caught by a spellchecker. Paid/pain, affect/effect, plural nouns with an apostrophe, the word " its' ". If Ejps19 is planning to submit again, I would suggest having someone else look over the work first. Occasional errors are one thing, and that's why it's great we have a collaborative model here, but it's asking too much of other editors when virtually every sentence has something that needs fixing.


 * There were also many instances of broken formatting, including minor things like a space at the beginning of a paragraph (a formatting trick which for the life of me I can't remember the name of). This doesn't indent (if that was even the author's aim; I suspect it was a typo); it renders the paragraph differently, which would have been seen from a quick preview of the page.


 * Similarly, a major formatting issue occurred when Ejps19 removed part of a citation (accidentally, I assume). This not only broke the citation, but effectively truncated the viewable article at that point. As of this edit, the article ended partway through the Public Concern section. It was missing the Regulation and Activism sections, which is a shame because that's where the context about the migrant worker issue was.


 * That contextual info was useful and should not have appeared so far down in the article. Several references are made to this one incident which happened over a decade ago, long before the section which finally explains that migrant workers are the group who are most exposed to pesticide problems, and the least politically enfranchised to fight back.


 * The mention of farm workers is essential to the topic, no question. But I felt the many references to one 2007 event was a very odd thing to dwell on. The topic is "pesticide drift," not "how pesticide drift affected one group in 2007," especially when that incident is referred to over and over before explaining the context/background. Including other examples of pesticide drift, and/or writing in more general terms, might help.


 * I hope this helps. Ejps19, I'm sorry I didn't speak directly with you about my removal of your edit. I'm sure I was in a hurry, but I should have made time. There are issues with your addition to this article, but it did include useful content as well. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from adding to Wikipedia, and if I can help with proofreading or anything else, please feel free to message me. Jessicapierce (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)