User talk:Emahgoub

Welcome!
Hello, Emahgoub, 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) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy
Hi! I saw that you edited this article. I have a few notes, but first up I wanted to let you know that since the article is of high quality (ie, Good or Featured Article status) it's going to be more closely monitored and edited than some of the other articles. This means that you need to use the best possible sources and also make sure that your writing is as neutral and encyclopedic as possible.

As far as notes go, the main thing is that I saw that you used studies as sources. 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. Reasons why studies need a secondary source are as follows:


 * 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, someone in Florida may respond differently than someone in California. Responses could also differ if the person was from another country entirely. Responses can be greatly impacted by a multitude of factors such as age, sex, gender, education (of the person and/or their family members), income bracket, culture, religion - there are many things that could alter how a person responds.
 * Someone could ask why one study was highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic and perhaps had different results.

This source looks to be fine, since it's not a study.

There's also a bit of an issue with style and tone, as some of the content is written from the perspective of a single person. For example, this statement comes across as a personal opinion:
 * Grey’s Anatomy aims to break these barriers of racial and disabled characters in order to spark a progressive change in popular culture.

This is put across as an opinion or like it absolutely does this, as someone could argue that this isn't the show's aim or that it doesn't really accomplish this. When it comes to claims of this nature you must attribute it to the person making the claim. You want to avoid coming across like you're using the sourcing to back up a point or claim you're trying to make as opposed to summarizing the sourcing.

I've removed the content since only one of the three paragraphs has a non-primary source and all of the content needs some tweaking to fit Wikipedia's editing style. As far as the paragraph about the non-primary source, here's how I'd re-work it.


 * Scholars such as Sarah Orem have commented that the show features of a diverse cast in terms of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. In a 2017 article with the African American Review Orem noted that the character of Miranda Bailey, an African American surgeon and Chief of Surgery at the Grey-Sloan Memorial Hospital, is portrayed as having OCD while balancing her lives at both home and work. Per Orem the series takes an atypical perspective on a disabled woman of color, as American popular culture portrays them as a risk to the workforce while white disabled men are treated with respect. She further states that Dr. Bailey’s OCD shows a “black disabled women's ability to contribute to American capitalism.”

This puts more of the emphasis on it being Orem's viewpoint without it coming across as an absolute. (IE, something that is a very universally and widely held opinion to the point where it can be perceived as a fact along the lines of gravity existing.) I also removed much of the information about Orem's qualifications - this is generally unnecessary given that the source itself is a well respected journal. I replaced this with "just" calling her a scholar and noting the journal's name.

I hope that this all helps! A lot of this is just retooling content to fit Wikipedia's style and sourcing guidelines, which admittedly takes some time getting used to. I know that when I first started editing it took me a while to get used to! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)