User talk:Jaredgoz

Welcome!
Hello, Jaredgoz, 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)

Feedback
Hi! I have some feedback:


 * The first sentence needs to be attributed to the person making the claim, as some may disagree with the statement. Any time you have a claim, it must be attributed as it could be a concept unique to that individual or to only a small amount of people. As such, it's important that only widely accepted and held content be put out without some form of attribution somewhere.
 * However that said, you also use Psychology today. This is problematic for a few reasons. The first is that Psychology Today blogs aren't really seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia because they aren't always accurate, their editorial oversight has been questioned on more than a few occasions, and they've also drawn from places like Wikipedia and WikiQuote in the past for their work. (Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so anything that draws heavily from it is questionable.) Now if it was a piece in the magazine itself, then that would potentially be usable depending on what it's sourcing. I wouldn't use it to back up medicine and psychology claims, despite its title. It's just not the strongest possible source, which is important for things in this subject area. Essentially, avoid popular press pieces and blogs in favor of academic and scholarly sources that give an overview of the topic per the training module.


 * The second source is essentially a study of sorts, or at least it looks like it is. Be very, very careful with studies. 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.
 * The reason this poses an issue is because it looks like they draw from several studies in order to make their own original claim. This means that as stated in the first point, this could be something that only the authors of the piece hold. You need to have a secondary source to help show where this information is notable enough to highlight in this much depth. Per Google Scholar these pieces cited the journal article, but what you'd have to determine is to what length they cite it and whether they agree with the five factors. This is also something that I would attribute to the people who originally created the list, as this is something that will be pretty subjective even if a large enough portion of academics and scholars agree with them to justify mentioning them.

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Couch (Band)


A tag has been placed on Couch (Band), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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 deleted 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. Celestina007 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Couch (Band) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Couch (Band), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Tatupiplu'talk 19:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Couch (Band) (December 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Couch (Band) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Couch (Band), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Couch_(Band) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Couch_(Band) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Couch (band)
Hello, Jaredgoz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Couch (band), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Couch (band)


Hello, Jaredgoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Couch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Eternal Shadow  Talk  17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Couch (band)


Hello, Jaredgoz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Couch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)