User talk:Yrodriguez7

Welcome!
Hello, Yrodriguez7, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Asexuality edits
I noticed that your additions to the asexuality article were reverted, and I wanted to give you some feedback on what the issues where. Remember that the role of a Wikipedia article is to describe what reliable sources say about a topic, rather than to engaged with the reader or convince them of anything. For example:

Saying "society automatically assumes" is far too broad a statement to make in Wikipedia's voice. You could attribute it to a source, but but saying it just so wouldn't work. Also remember that you aren't just writing about society in the US, you're talking about humanity at large. While it might be true, it's a strong statement, and it requires a very good source. (And still needs an "according to.." kind of attribution.

Be careful with statements like this

For starters, be careful with "however", because it implies a contrast. Whether intentional or not, it's the kind of word choice that points to an editorial opinion being inserted. What's more important though is the passive "research has shown". Research isn't something that happens passively. People do research - they collect and analyse data, and draw conclusions based on their data analysis. Things like experimental design, variable coding and transformation, selection of statistical tests - all these sorts of things come between reality and the results you end up with. Individual studies, in addition, are capable of drawing the wrong conclusions even if everything is done right. This is why you should always be specific in a case like this. (In addition, your source here is a blog post. You should be looking for review articles in the peer-reviewed literature which synthesise the primary literature.)

For similar reasons, you can't use a construct like "it is known".

In addition, remember that this is a WP:Good Article, which means that it's some of Wikipedia's best work. If you choose to work on a GA, it's important that your writing matches the expected style of Wikipedia, and that you get the formatting correct. The standard for GAs is higher than for other articles, which is one of the reasons why we caution against working on them. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)