User talk:Nicholas100000

Introduction
Hi! I am panacotta! Nice to meet you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panacotta101 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Nicholas100000, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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) 02:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I wanted to reply here as well and give you a bit more in-depth info: When checking for neutrality, a good rule of thumb is to look and see if there is anything written from a specific point of view. What I mean by that is that you should look to see if there are any words like "excitingly", "best", or if anything is written in a way that presents something as better than something else. Once/if you've spotted something, look to see if it's attributed to someone/something. For example, take the following two sentences:
 * Dogs are better than cats in the White House.
 * According to White House historian Katniss Everdeen, the most common pet owned by U.S. Presidents were dogs.

In the first sentence we're making a judgement statement and it's not really clearly attributed whereas in the second it's clearly attributed to the claim making person/organization, also giving the "who what where" about the claim. Not everything is going to be that easy to spot, however, so it's important to look for persuasive language. You also want to avoid making interpretive statements. There are some in the draft, such as "The rise in data breaches is evident" and "It should be noted though". The question here is who is making these statements? Why should it be noted? Why is this evident? We can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in the source material, so if this is something that was put in the writing then we could rephrase the first by saying "The Identity Theft Resource Center has reported an increase of data breaches, as the number of reported data breaches has increased from 421 in 2011, to 1,091 in 2016, and 1,579 in 2017." It's the same sentence, but removes the word 'evident' and instead lets the data do the talking and leaving it up to the reader to interpret it. For the second we can just remove the "it should be noted though" part and let the next sentence stand on its own. Other stuff I noted:
 * I'd remove the "accordingly" from the first paragraph.
 * You could rephrase "In addition, a federal data breach notification law has failed to be passed." to "Attempts to pass a federal data breach notification law have been unsuccessful." That's more of a personal preference, however.
 * The "Despite past attempts" can be removed - this has more or less already been established that there have been prior attempts so it's not really necessary.
 * Be careful of vague dated terms like "Most recently". This should be avoided for a few reasons. The first is that it's vague and a bit subjective, as what's recent for one won't be for another - 2015 was 5 years ago so for some this won't be recent. It's also likely to become inaccurate over time and it's not a guarantee that it will be corrected and removed when someone edits the article in the future to update with more recent information. It's best to just avoid them.
 * Leave out "On the other hand" since this comes across like we're making a persuasive argument.
 * "Most scholars" is a bit vague. I'd either specify a scientist and phrase it like "Scholars who advocate for federal data breach notification laws such as (name)..." or attribute it to the source making the claim ala "According to (name), ...".
 * Avoid comparing and contrasting other countries to the US outside of the US specific section unless there's sourcing to justify this. The reason for this is that unless the article is about the US in specific, the sections should be devoted to the specific country/area. I'd rephrase this to read as such:
 * In 1995, the EU passed the Data Protection Directive (DRD), which has recently been replaced with the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a comprehensive federal data breach notification law.
 * This is more straightforward and makes the section more about the EU without bringing the US into it. However the sentence "Similar to US concerns for a state-by-state approach creating increased costs and difficulty complying with all the state laws, the EU's various breach notification requirements in different laws creates concern", this should be fine enough as long as the comparison is made in the source itself. You may want to more clearly attribute it, though.


 * Remove the use of the word "furthermore" - this is a persuasive argument word.
 * Avoid saying "for example" in the article as it implies that it's our personal examples rather than an example that the source stated. It's better to write "An example given in (source)" or "Examples of this include...".
 * The statement "A potential explanation for why" needs to be re-written as this doesn't specify whose explanation this is. It just needs to be re-written in a way like "(Name) has offered a potential explanation..." or "(Name) has theorized that...", as this will attribute it so it doesn't seem like original research.
 * The following sentence comes across a little too persuasive/argumentative, like it's a closing argument of sorts. It also seems a little unnecessary since the prior paragraphs already established this.
 * While proving the Japanese culture makes specific data breach notification laws necessary is difficult to objectively prove, what has been shown is that companies that experience data breach do experience both financial and reputation harm

The work is generally pretty good, this just needs to be gone over for persuasive/argumentative type writing. Don't worry that you didn't catch it all on the first go - its really, REALLY hard to get used to Wikipedia's writing style at first. It took me a while to be able to get used to the difference between academic/personal/scholarly writing and Wikipedia writing and honestly, I still catch myself slipping up sometimes. I can see where you've tried to keep this neutral and while some stuff slipped through, you were still able to catch that it was there even if you weren't sure which parts were the ones that needed to be fixed. That's better than what I did when I first started editing on Wikipedia! (Some of my stuff was pretty cringe worthy, honestly.)

Let me know if you need any help! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)