User talk:Knc007

Changes to patient participation
Hi! I made some changes to the article on patient participation. The reason for this is that the content had some issues with tone and sourcing which I'll go into more detail with below.

Concerning tone, the added content was a little casual in tone and in some places could even be seen as promotional. This wasn't your intent, but you need to be very careful when describing things. Avoid using phrases like "highly insightful", as this is something that's fairly subjective, as one person may see the CafeWell Concierge as helpful while others may not. It's also the type of thing that tends to be included in press releases and advertising, as phrases like that make it easier to sell something by making people think better of the product.

You also need to be careful of sourcing. Some of the content looked to be unsourced, as in the case of the CafeWell Concierge. The source you gave didn't specifically mention the app, so it can't really be used to back up anything that was written about it. Using it to back up this particular app can actually be seen as original research, which you shouldn't add to articles on Wikipedia. (It went to this link.) You should also be very careful when choosing sourcing on products and science related matters, as primary sources (ie, something written by the person/organization/etc themselves) are not always the best source for things. For example, you can use a primary source to back up very basic details but you shouldn't use it to back up opinions or major claims. The reason for this is that the person or organization is more likely to talk about something in a way that makes their product/invention/conclusion seem like it's the greatest because they want other people to buy the product and/or think like they do. You should especially do this with claims because you never really know when something is factual or if they're hyping it up for sales. In the case of the article you used to back up the CafeWell Concierge, the source was almost solely quotes from one of the people involved with the IBM Watson - meaning that it's as good as a primary source. I also wanted to note that if you're mentioning specific apps or technology in a general section you should definitely make sure that the source is independent and reliable, as you need to justify why it's important to mention that particular item over something similar. In other words, you have to show why it's notable enough to highlight.

I hope that you don't take any of this badly - science related writing can be really tricky, especially when you are used to writing academic papers where most of the above would not be seen as an issue at all. I just wanted to explain why I did this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Knc007, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)