User talk:Sabrinafinke

Welcome!
Hello, Sabrinafinke, 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) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Friday the 13th
Hi! I saw that you edited this article. I wanted to give you a couple of head's up. The first is that this is one of Wikipedia's Good Articles, which means that it's one of the best of the best on Wikipedia. As such you need to make sure that anything you add is as neutrally written as possible and that you're using the best possible sources. These types of articles tend to be heavily watched, so it means that there are more people who may differ in opinion as to what should be on the page and how it's written.

Now that aside, I do have some concerns. The main one is that the section is fairly general about the franchise viewership. As such, I'd recommend that you move it to the main article on the franchise, Friday the 13th (franchise) or to the article on Slasher film. The reason for this is that since it only touches on the franchise general (and is more about who watches slasher films and horror and why), it doesn't really fit in an article that's about one specific movie in the franchise. The section should be focusing more specifically on the audience that went to view the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th. Personally I'd put it in the main article for the franchise.

The second thing I noticed was that you mentioned a lot of individual studies. Keep in mind that studies are primary sources and as such, should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in California may respond differently than someone in Kansas - or even someone in Russia, the UK, or Japan. Things like religion, education, backgrounds, income, culture, and other elements can also greatly impact the results. Even within a small area or a specific group, we can't guarantee that their responses are representative of everyone else from their area or group. (ie, groupings based on things like gender, sexuality, race or ethnicity, and so on) As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.

I did edit the section some and removed the mention of the individual studies as well as make some changes so attribution is more clear. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It also looks like your edits to Jaws were reverted because of sourcing issues since the sourcing didn't copy over properly. The above issues definitely do relate to this section as well, since it looks like the sourcing was very heavily studies. Also, Jaws is actually a Featured Article which means that it's at a higher rating than the other film - featured articles are the best of the best of the best on here.
 * To be honest, I would really recommend that you look into articles that are far less developed than these. There are many horror films out there that either don't have an article or they're very short and underveloped stubs. Category:Horror film stubs is full of various films that would fall into that realm. One film that really could use a film is the indie movie La Rage du démon (also known as Fury of the Demon). It's a faux documentary about a purported film that would drive its viewers into chaos and madness. It's incredibly well done and does definitely pass notability guidelines - it just hasn't been created yet. Part of what makes it so neat is that while the gist of the film is that people will talk about this fictional film, the movie essentially tells the life story of Georges Méliès, a filmmaker who has influenced many people over the years. It's really a neat film and would be fun to write about. It's one that I've been meaning to do for years, but never got around to. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sabrinafinke/sandbox


Hello, Sabrinafinke. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Sabrinafinke/sandbox.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)