User talk:Professional D./Crisis pregnancy center

Hi I got your email!


 * For most sources, reliability is contextual. It's more making sure the source is good enough to support the claim (bolder claims require stronger sources). I think this source would be fine to cite for the number of crisis pregnancy centers in the US, for example. You can add maps or images as long as their licenses are compatible with Wikipedia. We have a training here for contributing images and media to Commons. If you have a specific image/map in mind and cannot find its licensing information, let me know and I can help you determine if it is legally permissible to use it on Wikipedia.
 * I think it would be acceptable to have a section about use on or near college campuses. Just remember that this isn't a phoenomenon specific to one region. Looks like CPCs are found in several countries. Don't put particular emphasis on just one or a few countries.
 * related to your point about the sentence re: British Pregnancy Advisory Service, I think it's fine to add more detailed content about other countries, including the US.
 * You can remove the sentence about Louisiana if you think it's adding misleading emphasis that would make the reader think Louisiana is an exception, and not part of a general trend.
 * "has no affect" should be "has no effect" :)
 * You're citing a primary source to say that viewing ultrasounds has no impact on the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Can you instead find a secondary source? I would say that this is a biomedical claim, so a secondary source is required.
 * You made a point ("While some centers refer clients for contraception, most do not and the service may be limited to married women": need to be: CPCs do not offer offer contraception, but their advertisement often give the appearance that they do.) and included a citation but the citation appears to be specific to the US. We also have to be careful with blanket statements. If we say "CPCs do not offer contraception", is that a blanket statement that stands true for the entire world? There would only need to be one exception somewhere in the world for this statement to be incorrect.

In general, keep working on converting your ideas and thoughts into prose instead of bullet points. Also, make sure you keep a global perspective in mind when expanding this article. Let me know if you have questions! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elysia, Thank you for your comments. One question or thought: actually, the page is mostly about the U.S. With the exception of a sentence or two here and there, all other sections and discussions that are there are focused on CPPCs in the U.S. I am not an expert of CPCs in other parts of the world. So should I just add sometimes "in the United States...."? or should I move the very few points about Canada and England (as well as a few other countries) to separate sections and hope that someone else develops them? Professional D. (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the scope of this article should be global (the scope of any article should be global unless specified by the title). That's why we have articles like Abortion (global scope, no one country or region should be weighted above others) and Abortion in Uganda, Abortion in Guatemala, Abortion in Rhode Island, etc. If you wanted to focus solely on one region, you could create the article Crisis pregnancy centers in the United States. We don't want to put undue focus on one particular region or country in the main article crisis pregnancy center. Even if this is already a problem in the article, we don't want to exacerbate it.


 * So in summary
 * Either create a new article (not as intimidating as it sounds!) or
 * Keep working on the main article Crisis pregnancy center, being sure to include statistics that are reflective of all crisis pregnancy centers.


 * Don't feel like the second option is beyond you! Most of Wikipedia is written by people with no formal expertise in a given area. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)