User talk:Suzanne10

what up dawg back at ya

I would certainly enjoy working with you. Do you want to sign up officially with me as your mentor? Racepacket (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just checking to see if I know what I am doing!!! Dvpolicy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvpolicy11 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is me sending you a message. --BrickWallBartholomew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Messages
Hello there! I'm GorillaWarfare, Dvpolicy's mentor. Just letting you know that you should not leave messages on user pages, only on user talk pages. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 13:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle laws
I think that you should develop a narrative explaining the problem to be addressed, the approach taken, and the results or consequences. Bicycle law in California has far too much quotation of primary material. You might want to consider a table summarizing or contrasting the helmet provisions in a number of states. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Mentor status
Racepacket is currently unavailable on Wikipedia. You should choose another mentor from Online Ambassadors/Mentors. There are a number of us still available, but that may change as students in other classes start requesting mentors. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring
Sure! I'd be glad to. I'm at work during the day and usually don't post between about 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. east coast time, but will be available most of the rest of the day and on IRC if necessary. I'll add a couple more notes tonight when I get home from work. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi -- IRC is a chat program; some students use it to get real time support, but if you've never heard about it don't worry. I've made a couple of edits to your user page; I hope you don't mind, but I thought you might like to see a couple of simple formats -- I made your list of articles into a bullet list, and made the first one a wikipedia link -- all you do to do that is put square brackets around the article name.  You can click on the edit button on your user page if you want to see what I did.
 * I'll keep an eye on those three articles and see what I can do to help. If you'd like to let me know when you have any assignments on Wikipedia I'd be happy to see if I can help with them.  Just let me know.  I am on every day so a note on my talk page will get my attention fairly quickly.  Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about to head out for the evening but I saw your note and will keep an eye on your new article. (I replied at my talk page too, but I thought I'd add a note here so you'd be sure to see it.) Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Note on your sandbox
I can create the article for you when you're ready; just let me know where you think it should go and I'll set it up for you. (The easiest way to do it is to create a "redlink" and click on that; a "redlink" is a link to an article that doesn't exist yet. (This is an example redlink.)  Do you want the article to be "Bicycle helmet laws"?  Or maybe "Bicycle helmet use"?

You might want to take a look at Bicycle helmets by country, which has some sources you might find useful.

Looking at your sandbox, I thought a couple of comments might be helpful -- your second paragraph, on laws, has a lot of good information in that it sounds like you can cite directly -- things like "there are 22 state laws regarding bicycle helmets". The first paragraph sounds more like an opinion piece -- you say "The problem to be addressed with regard to bicycle helmet use is should legislation be passed requiring bicyclists of all ages to wear bicycle helmets?" which sounds sensible to me, but is that what the sources that discuss bicycle helmet law say? If so, that's fine, but let's cite it.

I've done some reformatting of your sandbox; I hope you don't mind -- I can revert it if you prefer. I see you have some page ref citations in there -- if you can provide the bibliographic details for those sources, I'll set them up as proper footnote citations for you. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

References formatted
Nice job figuring out how to get the footnotes to display -- that's one of the trickier things in Wikipedia; I'm impressed you worked it out!

I formatted some of the references using the "cite web" template; if you like you can try doing the others; if not I'll do them for you in the next few days. I also noticed you had reused the same reference multiple times; there's a way to avoid retyping all that info, so I did that for you too -- you'll see the repeated refs now are only listed once each.

Let me know if you want help with the photo. I know there's a "how to video" on that somewhere; I'll find that and post a link here for you in the next day or two. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like there's no video yet, but there is this handout, which may help. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm., I can't find my sandbox. It is usually on my user page but it is not there. Thanks for the help with the references. I was wondering how to not duplicate the same cite over and over again. Hope to hear from you soon.Suzanne10 (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just emailed you; but in case you see this first, the quickest thing to do is click on "My contributions" at the top right of the page and you'll see a list of all your edits, including the sandbox. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Image
I just added a map to your article in your sandbox; how does that look? The map was drawn by another Wikipedian at the Graphics lab, which creates graphics on request. If we need it tweaked we can probably do that easily enough.

Let me know what you want to call the article -- I think it should be "Bicycle helmet laws". I'll move it into a real article whenever you're ready. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need another photo, at least, not right away. Yes, you can still work on it while it's a real article -- that's what everyone here does!  That's how the place works.  All the articles are constantly being worked on; nothing is ever really finished.


 * Let me know when you're ready, and I'll move it to Bicycle helmet laws. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle helmet laws created
I've moved your sandbox to bicycle helmet laws, and done a little clean up on it. I will fix the remaining references in the next day or so. It looks good! What else do you need to get done on the article for your assignment? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Hi -- take a look at this section of the DYK page; it tells you what the rules for a "Did you know" are. You only have five days to do this, so we should get the nomination in quickly. Have you decided on a "hook" yet? That's the bit that goes on the front page -- take a look at the Main page and you'll see some examples. Let me know and I'll help you set it up. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I got your email -- that picture was actually added by a totally uninvolved editor that found the article and thought it would be good to add it. That's why it's fun to put the article out for real instead of keeping it in your sandbox -- you get collaborators for free!  Though sometimes nobody shows up -- it's all volunteers, after all, so sometimes your article gets no help.  Anyway, it wasn't me.  You said "should it be under the helmet section"; did you mean under the "History of the helmet standard" section? I think it's OK where it is, but if you want to move it, go ahead.
 * The hook you suggested is "Ninety-one percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly weren’t wearing helmets." I think that's pretty good, and it has an inline reference to a reliable source, which is a key point.  However, you have to have a link to your article in there.  You're right it's a quote to grab attention, but the idea is that it links to the article that has the fact.  So suppose the hook was "... despite the fact that helmet use reduces bicyclist fatalities by 85%, there are still twelve states with no helmet laws at all?"  Then we could link "helmet laws" to the bicycle helmet laws" article.  How about that? However, if we do that, we have to add that last bit of information to the article (it's in that same source you were using).  The rules for DYK are that you have to have the "fact" in the article, and it has to be cited. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. If you can add that information to the article, I will put the hook together and leave you a note telling you how to nominate it.  I'll try to get that done in the next hour or two -- I need to check in on a couple of other things. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The source I was looking at was this one -- the fatality facts one, but your suggestion would work too, so yes, you're on the right track. We need to get that fact about the 85% and 88% into the article -- then we can write a hook for that.  So go ahead and add that info to the article.


 * When you've done that, the next step is to actually nominate your article for DYK. To do that, go here; that's the section of the DYK nominations that deals with articles created or expanded on Feb 23, which is when we moved your article out of the sandbox.  Click on the "Edit" link for "Articles created/expanded on February 23" and you'll see a big list of instructions.  The one you're going to want is "  -- that looks complicated, but it's actually pretty straight forward.  Fill in article = with Bicycle helmet laws; put your name for author and your name for nominator, and add the hook where it says "... that ?"  Put all of that down at the very bottom of the edit window, so that it goes at the end of the section.  I recommend using the "Preview" button to see what it looks like in case you make any mistakes; that way you can tweak it till it's right.  If you get stuck, send me an email with what you're trying to put in, and I'll do it for you in the morning.  I think you should have a shot at doing it yourself first, though!  Any questions, leave me a note or email me -- I'll be up for another half hour or hour. Mike Christie (talk – library) 04:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne, welcome to Wikipedia, and Mike, thanks for all your hard work so far. I have made a few changes to the article. I'd like to point out that you have correctly identified the most dramatic figures on bicycle helmets (though they don't actually relate directly to laws). They are also well-known to be wrong. Not just disputable or anything; they are wrong - more details on the talk page, where I intend to take any further discussion. I have removed them. I have also put in a brief account (from Bicycle helmet) of the state of the scientific debate. I hope this is helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Richard; we will take a look at the talk page. Suzanne, the immediate goal is DYK, and the source Richard removed is not the one you need for that, so I suggest you go ahead with the DYK nom and we can look at any changes to the article later.  As I said, email me if you have trouble. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, sorry, but it was the source you needed for DYK. Deep apologies but it really is factually wrong. I'll try to think of something that we can use as a good hook for a DYK, but there's nothing that strikes me as suitable in the article at present. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the source we were going to use for the hook I suggested, but Suzanne suggested on my talk page that we use "Bicyle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85% and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88%" from the NCDOT source, which is still there -- so I think we're OK. She still needs to actually add that info to the article, of course.  Do you think that would work for a DYK hook?  I don't nominate at DYK so I'm not really familiar with what they like to see. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, those two figures are among the shibboleths - they have only one original source and that is a misunderstanding of what an odds ratio means; it's also not the worst thing about that particular study. For a DYK, what about "enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries". It has a number of advantages - it's from a definitive recent review, nobody has made any serious criticisms, and it's a neat fact that is new to most readers.


 * Would it help to keep future discussion about Bicycle helmet laws to the talk page of that article? It keeps all the discussion together. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nominated
I went ahead and nominated the article for you; click here to see the nomination. I will keep an eye on it and let you know if it gets to the main page so you can enjoy your moment in the limelight! Good luck with it; I hope it makes it. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle helmet laws
Hello Suzanne, thanks for your message on my talk page and I hope you're getting something out of your Wikipedia experience. You have certainly chosen a subject that may enable you to say and write quite a lot for your course; it is controversial, public policy is indeed being made, there is a lot of science around the issue, some of it is of good quality and some isn't, and there are lots of sources, some better than others both in terms of science and for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. It may be particularly interesting because you have chosen a subject on which - in some parts of the English-speaking world - a point of view of almost religious intensity is the unchallenged norm. I realize you may have been a little surprised that not everyone agrees! I've met this POV before, of course.

Looking at your course aims I find: 1) Understand what policy analysis is and how policy analysis can improve governance. 2) Understand the role of people skills in policy analysis and be able to identify how your people skills can be improved. 3) Be able to identify how policy is made. 4) Understand when forecasting and cost-benefit analysis are appropriate and apply the proper technique to analyze policy in the proper situation. 5) Be more adept at using statistics to analyze policy. 6) Understand and apply the steps to analyzing policy. 7) Understand the strengths and weaknesses of surveys and experiments in policy analysis. 8) Be a better consumer of policy analysis. 9) Understand the similarities and differences across different types of policies. 10) Understand how to communicate about policy with a variety of audiences.

I hope that the development of the article will help you with most of them. We seem to have a fair section on how policy is made in this area, something on statistics and policy analysis, and there are certainly plenty of surveys (also, helmet laws could be described as experiments) both strong and weak. Whether this makes you a better consumer of policy analysis is definitely down to you. Aims 9 and 10 may also develop partly from the article, but I think they are for you to do rather than for Wikipedia.

You have many other sources of support, but if I can help you in any way with what you're trying to do, feel free to get in contact again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. focused article vs. global article
Got your message -- there's been a discussion on the talk page about this very issue, and currently the consensus is that the articles shouldn't be divided by country -- that could lead to a separate article for each of dozens of countries. The reader is better served by having a single article that covers all the different countries; that way the article can discuss what's common across different countries and what's different.

I think in your case it's fine to be interested only in U.S. helmet laws; there's no need for you to broaden your scope. The article should include other material, but you're under no obligation to provide it. If you have more material to add, I would just add it under an appropriate section heading. Generally it's good to have other editors working on the article too, because they can help. I do think Richard went a bit too far with his edits, and the article should be pulled back to be more specifically about the laws, but you don't have to solve that whole issue -- just add the material that you think should be there and work with Richard and me and any other interested editors on the talk page of the article if there are any debates about the content. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bicycle helmet laws
The article Bicycle helmet laws you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Bicycle helmet laws for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nudge: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)