User talk:Mcoyne1616

Welcome!
Hello, Mcoyne1616, 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) 18:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello, I'm Plandu. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Daddy's Roommate— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Plandu (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Good Article nomination
Hi! I saw that you nominated the article Daddy's Roommate for Good Article status. I want to give you a bit of a head's up - a GA nomination can take a lot of time since there's a backlog and as such, it will be a while before it's reviewed. After reviewing, there's an expectation that you will improve any concerns that are brought up by the reviewer so that it can be approved. This process may take anywhere between a couple of weeks to 1-3 months for an article to be reviewed and successfully close. This means that the process will go on after your class has ended, so I want to make sure that you're able and willing to do this. Here is an overview of the process and the expectations.

Now that aside, I would recommend looking over this page so that you can get a good idea of what the reviewer will be looking for with the article - this way you can head off a lot of concerns at the pass. I don't see anything that would immediately invalidate the nomination, so the things to look for would be as follows:
 * 1) Well written
 * 2) Verifiable with no original research
 * 3) Broad in its coverage
 * 4) Neutral
 * 5) Stable
 * 6) Illustrated

The article has an image and doesn't have any recent history of edit warring, so it's both illustrated and stable. I wouldn't worry as much about those two at the moment. The main things to review would be the first four. Make sure that there are no opinion statements that aren't clearly attributed and that all major claims are backed up with reliable sources. If necessary, claims may also need to be attributed.

Here are some things that I noted:


 * The statement "Demonstrating pride that the book has been utilized to educate children about gay families" can come across as original research since technically this isn't stated in the source material. It's something that the average person could infer, but since it wasn't explicitly stated this will need to be tweaked to be more straightforward. Maybe something along the lines of "In the tenth anniversary edition Wilhoite wrote that the book was "still, triumphantly, what I first intended: a mirror in which children of gay parents can see themselves. Yet it has also been used as a tool to educate children in more traditional families about gay families in their midst.""
 * This doesn't flow as well, but I wanted to give you an idea of how that could be re-phrased.


 * The following statement may be challenged:
 * During the early 1990s, Daddy's Roommate was added to many public libraries following positive reviews in Publishers Weekly and Booklist.
 * It looks like this is sourced with the PW review and a study. The PW review can't back up any claims other than it was reviewed by PW. The study is a bit problematic because it's a primary source for any claims and research conducted by its authors. What this basically means is that if this claim is backed up by the research conducted by the researchers (ie, their findings showed that it was added to libraries after the reviews) we need a secondary, independent source that reviews or cites the study and makes this same claim. This isn't a medical topic at all, but this training module does go over the reasons why studies are seen as primary sources (and what can be done with them). However, if the claim was taken from the study's literature review or they're citing someone else, then that would be OK. (In other words, it just can't be their own research.)

Other than that, I'm going to point you towards some standard stuff like a list of words to watch and instructional language. I don't think that either is really an issue here, but they're both good things to have in your arsenal if you choose to pursue GA status. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daddy's Roommate
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daddy's Roommate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'll keep an eye on this as well, so let me know at if the student doesn't respond once you're finished reviewing. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  00:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daddy's Roommate
The article Daddy's Roommate you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Daddy's Roommate for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mcoyne1616, you did some really nice work with Daddy's Roommate. I am guessing your class is over so I don't know if you want to keep working at it, but I am a little more optimistic than Catriona that it could get to GA status. If you're willing to keep improving it, feel free to renominate it and I will pick-up the review (for an example of a similar book that I recently reviewed that got GA see When Megan Went Away. If you don't want to keep working at it, I understand and thanks for the work you did to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this notable book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I never said that I wasn't optimistic about the article eventually meeting GA status, just that it wasn't ready for GA review at the moment. I appreciate the work that you did on the article and hope that you will continue with the improvements necessary to meet the GA criteria. Regards, Catrìona (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)