User talk:Robinkvest

Hello, Robinkvest and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. We encourage you to read our instructions for students. Your instructor or professor may wish to participate in either the School and University WikiProject or the Wikipedia Education Program. The Wikipedia Education Program is supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and offers official online and classroom support through the Ambassador Program.

Here are some other pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished!

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! A412  (Talk &bull; C) 05:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Article review
Robin’s article is certainly pertinent to current US health care policy, and I truly hope she will be able to get the article approved. However, it is true that there are some inherent problems with the way the article is written. For example, the statistics section is very choppy and difficult to absorb. While it is written out quite simply, the inclusion of so much differing information in a small section of the article makes it challenging to determine what is truly pertinent to the issue and what is not. I would suggest touching only on statistics that you plan on expanding.

Another issue is the huge lack of sources. One of the reasons Wikipedia can actually be a reliable source is because of the widespread use of citations. However, your whole article only has ten sources, and most sentences are not sourced. I would go back and source literally every sentence. When you do this, you will be able to see how the initial source, presumably a neutral scholarly article or research paper, was written, which will help you steer away from ‘essay writing’ and remaining unbiased. More sources also provide differing stances on the issue, which will give you even more material to work with an fewer ‘filler’ sentences.

Finally, the article needs some general grammatical work to make it more professional and reliable. The sentences are very short and in quick succession which is not easy to read. The paragraphs can also be split up to look a little less intimidating. Also, any time you list something, I’d suggest putting in bulleted format, which leads to less filler words and editorializing.

All in all, it’s a great article. There’s no reason that with a little more work it shouldn’t be approved.

Ellyhutch (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuing Edits
Elly, thanks for all your comments. It definitely is very choppy right now as I took out a lot of information to try and make it extremely neutral. I will definitely add in more sources, I have a lot more, and will continue to make readability better. If anyone else has suggestions for re-organization or places to cut or expand please let me know.

Robinkvest (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article review
For being a brand-new article, I think it does a quality job of displaying a comprehensive presentation of the subject. The definition and demographics of CSHCN is clearly laid out in the second section, and I think including the section on government programs gives the subject credibility because it is obviously relavant to health care in the U.S. if it falls under the umbrella of Medicaid and other programs and mandates. The section on 'Transition to adult healthcare' also benefits the comprehensiveness of the article, for children with special health care needs must go somewhere when they aren't children anymore.

The article also draws from credible government sources, an important part of what makes an article fit for the wikipedia mainspace. I don't see the claim of it "sounding like an essay" to be a prohibitory factor from making it go live when it has reasonable source content and obviously factual information on a relavent subject to "human knowledge." Touch-ups are necessary, as with any article's page.

Lggernon (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article review
This article is definitely relevant and I can see its potential to become a great article. With the edits already made, it no longer reads like an essay but as stated before it's still pretty choppy and could use general revision. I can also see where the neutrality might be questionable. An easy fix for this is to state the studies from which some of the statistics come. For example, the sentence "CSHCN when compared to those children without SHCN face more inadequacies in healthcare, education, health of family, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle" could be changed to "According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, CSHCN when compared to those children without SHCN face more inadequacies in healthcare, education, health of family, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle." That way the sentence is shown as coming from a reputable statistical study.

Just as a general note, there are many places where you could add the main page for certain links (Main Article: _______); specifically, for the "Medicaid" and "Children's Health Insurance Programs" subsections.

Overall, this article is well done. It provides an exhaustive display of what CSHCN are and their placement within the United States health care system. Once some of these changes are made, the article should go live immediately. It is surprisingly that this topic didn't already exist in Wikipedia because it's such an important topic when considering the health care controversy. The recent addition of sources gives the article more credibility and neutrality, and the article can only get better from here.

Allisonshields (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Review
I think that this is a wonderful topic that people should learn more about. Currently the article is in need of some edits. I can see why they claimed it to be "essay-like" and "unnuetral". However, the main issue is not content, but rather word choice. Some of the word choices indicate that you have an opinion about the content in one way or the other. However, this article is good, and with a little work should be worthy enough to be allowed to go live. This is a very important topic and this information should be made available to the general public so that they can be more informed. Especially since healthcare seems to be an important topic on the national agenda, it is important that all healthcare information be made available and easily accessible.

I made a few edits, and signed them. Feel free to accept or reject these changes. If you have any questions about any of them. Please contact me.Kdumelle13 (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits
Thanks Kathia, the edits were very helpful and I appreciated the re-organization. I added more names of who did all the studies and will continue revising word choice.

Robinkvest (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article review
The article provides much information on a topic that involves many lives- particularly children. This article is off to a great start, and with just some edits, I believe that the article will be approved soon.

From what I see, I do not agree with the reason that the article reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. It contains various secondary articles, and I think it is organized well. As for edits, adding more information at the beginning of the article will be beneficial. Providing a basic overview on the importance of the topic will help readers to be introduced to the topic. Secondly, the use of acronyms disrupts the flow of the article. Using the full title instead of CSHCN will be effective in keeping the focus on the children. It seems like CSHCN is some sort of medicine or a medical condition particularly at the end of the article. Lastly, I recommend that citations be done for every sentence that provides statistics, facts, and any other statements from sources even if the source has already been cited in the same paragraph.

Taking the suggestions in this talk page into consideration while working on the article should boost the article to gain approval. It discusses an important issue especially with the current situation in the US. MinjKim (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Children with Special Healthcare Needs in the United States, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Rkjtc (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Children with Special Healthcare Needs in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Depression and Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Prevalence of Female Genital Cutting.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prevalence of Female Genital Cutting.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Help us improve the Wikipedia Education Program
Hi Robinkvest! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)