User talk:Yazlor

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Yazlor/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Yazlor/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Yazlor/sandbox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Yazlor/sandbox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration family separation policy
Hi, I saw that you made edits to this article. Be aware that this article is held under sanctions, which means that it's under far more scrutiny than the average article. What this means is that content needs to be written as neutrally as possible and use the strongest possible sourcing. I've reverted this for the time being, as there are some concerns with the sourcing.

One of the two sources is this journal article, which is a study. Studies 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, study findings may be different depending on who is chosen and what venues the researchers choose to go through, as well as the area of the country and several other factors. 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.

The Center for American Progress is also problematic since it is socially liberal and centrist, and has a specific viewpoint on Trump. We'd be hard pressed to find a center or research facility that is 100% neutral, but it gets more tricky when a facility is openly described as having a specific viewpoint. The article offhand doesn't seem to be a study per se, not in the same way that the other one is, but the question of bias and original research could still be voiced. It's not necessarily the best source to use on its own, is what I'm getting at. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Yazlor/sandbox


Hello, Yazlor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 21:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)