User talk:GVR117

Welcome!
Hello, GVR117, 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) 16:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Note
Hi! I wanted to give you some notes on the copyedits to the article on beagles:


 * With spelling variations, the general consensus is for it to use the most common English spelling - many countries use British-esque spellings, so in many articles this is used over the American spelling variation. It's not something that a lot of people really realize when first editing Wikipedia and is something I myself did when I first started editing.


 * Images should generally only be added if it can add something to the article and the article doesn't already contain enough images to get the same point across. In this case the side view of the beagle in the info box is a better image to start off the article, as it gives a good side view of a beagle's distinctive shape and markings.


 * When it comes to hyphens and apostrophes, they aren't necessary with things like a general date (1980s) or a word that is typically not hyphenated. Now I will say that if we're talking about the dates in a possessive format, such as "the 1980's music" or "80's music", an apostrophe should be used.

These are all things that are easy to do when first starting out with Wikipedia for the most part, as the site's guidelines can be different from how things are formatted and spelled elsewhere, so no worries! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

United_States_abortion-rights_movement
Hi, I received a notification about your edits to the article on the US abortion-rights movement. I have removed your content for the time being, as there were some issues:


 * You used a study as a source for some of your content. 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.
 * Since this is a health and medicine related article, it's even more important to be careful with studies. You can read this page for more information.


 * There was a large quote used at one point - this posed an issue with fair use since we can only use quotes if they met several requirements. First, the content must be something that can't be summarized in your own words without losing something. Second, there must be context for the quote. Third, it must be clearly marked and attributed.


 * You used the word "we" in one section. Wikipedia uses the third person writing style, as using words like "you" and "we" comes across like it's written by a specific person and also presumes something of the reader. You can read more about this here.


 * The writing came across like it was written from a specific viewpoint at times - this poses an issue of neutrality, as the article must not take sides.


 * When referencing time periods, be specific - keep in mind that terms like "currently" and "recent" can often become dated pretty quickly and can sometimes even be subjective depending on the reader, as someone may see recently as within the last month while another may see recent as the last 2-3 years.

I hope that this helps explain why it was removed - since this is such a controversial topic, these issues would absolutely need to be resolved before anything is added back. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright/plagiarism
I did some investigation of the material and I actually discovered that at least some of what you added was copied from the source verbatim without it being marked as a quote. This is seen as a copyright issue and plagiarism, even though you had included the original source as a citation. Always be careful when writing article content - a good way to avoid doing this is to take notes while reading and write your article from those notes.

Unless the material is explicitly marked as falling into the public domain or was released under a compatible Creative Commons license, it should be assumed that the content is copyrighted in a way that would prohibit it from being used verbatim elsewhere. It's always best to write things in your own words, as this can help prevent issues like this from arising. I would like for you to review the module on plagiarism and copyright, thanks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)