User talk:Khamelia H.

Welcome!
Hello, Khamelia H., 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) 17:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative writing
Hi, I saw that your content at collaborative writing has been reverted by, as he felt that it was a point of view essay. I'm going to review the work and give you some notes, but I wanted to urge you not to re-add the content until any issues have been resolved. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Here are my notes:


 * Avoid point of view wording such as "important" or "effective", as this is subjective to the reader. For example, some may see collaborative writing as less important in group work or disagree altogether. The only time wording like this can be used is when we're directly attributing the viewpoint to a specific person who is quoted in or has written a reliable source where this statement is explicitly made.


 * Try to avoid vague terms, such as "some researchers", unless it's referring to something that is generally seen as true by most authorities on the topic. (There will need to be a reliable source that specifies this.) The reason for this is that in most cases we should try to attribute a claim to a specific person or give an example of that person, as in many instances the source may be specifying a particular person when they make a comment.


 * With studies, make sure that you avoid using only studies to back up content covering the study or its claims. The reason for this is that the study is a primary source for the claims made in the study, as it's typically written by the people who conducted the research or were otherwise involved with it. As such, there needs to be coverage of the study (or the specific claim cited in the study) in a secondary, independent reliable source. This will not only help back up the claims, but it will also show where the study is notable enough to include in the work. There are some other good reasons to have a secondary source that covers the study, but I'll stick to this one since it's one of the main reasons.


 * Do not include tips or recommendations in the article. This is for several reasons. One is that it presumes something of the reader, which can cause issues with neutrality. There's also that it's subjective, meaning that the tips could work for one reader but not another. It also comes across as a how to guide, which isn't the point of Wikipedia.


 * You removed the section on authorship and replaced it with a section on views of collaborative writing. These two topic areas seem like they would brush on similar areas but not exactly be the same thing, as someone can have a view on collaborative writing but not really be talking about authorship. I think it's important to retain the authorship section.


 * Be cautious of wording. Things like "although" and "however" can sometimes come across as arguing more for one point than another. They're things that can seem ubiquitous and not really an issue, but in the right setting can pose an issue. This is definitely something I can help you with, as it's something I had (and still occasionally do have) trouble with when I first started editing.

I think that you have some good content here, but it just needs to be re-written to resolve the above issues and to add some secondary sourcing in the case of the studies. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)