User talk:Zoemes20

Welcome!
Hello, Zoemes20, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! EggRoll97 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Zoemes20, 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) 17:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Some editing tips
Hello Zoe and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. At the Energy drink page, I noticed some formatting errors which I can point out to you here with the hope you'll be able to improve your editing quality for the encyclopedia. I admire your background and career ambitions, so am open to helping you. Feel free to ask questions here on your talk page which I am now following. Good luck! --Zefr (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * formatting a reference. Here is Citer which can format references quickly for you. If you use the medical literature listing, PubMed, just enter the pmid or pmc number. In my experience, the DOI works best.
 * repeat use of a reference is accomplished by using WP:REFNAME. Give the source a name, such as, use Citer to fill out the rest of the details, then use the refname template the next time you use the same reference.
 * punctuation goes before the reference used, explained in WP:REFPUNCT.
 * in general, when citing for medical content, be skeptical about the source, and follow the medical content sourcing guide, WP:MEDRS, to choose high-quality reviews, mainly of completed clinical research.


 * Hi, thank you for the tips. Is the referencing the only thing wrong with what I am writing because I just am not completely sure what I am doing wrong?Zoemes20 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be more specific about which edit was "wrong". For this edit, 1) Healthline is not a reliable source on Wikipedia; 2) the edit contained words like "many people", "often assumed", "many to believe", "easy to say", which are unencyclopedic terms and seem to be your synthesis (WP:SYNTH) and a soapbox disapproval, WP:SOAP, rather than neutral, well-sourced statements, WP:NPOV. You also used the same "myths and facts" source twice without WP:REFNAME formatting. Don't be concerned - these are typical learning steps for new editors. One further point: the energy drink article is about both the industry trend and the potential for over-use, with the latter point being a medical topic which requires strong clinical sources. Here is a PubMed search for review articles on the clinical concerns and potential negative effects of energy drinks in young people. Try to use full articles accessible online to everyone (articles with a PMC or full-article URL), those published within the past 5 years, and those in the most reputable journals. WP:MEDHOW and WP:WHYMEDRS are guides for choosing strong sources for medical topics. Below is a short video on MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)




 * Hi, so I have created another post for the section on demographics, however I was wondering if maybe you could take a look at it, just to see if it is okay or if I am on the right track at all.

Demographic A study done on the population of Northern Israel examined the use of energy drinks in youth, found that out of the 375 students they had surveyed, 206 were reported they had consumed energy drinks. This being 115 females and 91 males. Youth is often the targeted age group as seen in a survey covered in 2015 on youth from the ages of 12 to 24, 80% of respondents reported that most energy drink ads can be seen on “television (58.8%), posters or signs in convenience or grocery stores(48.5%), and online ads(45.7%)”. Zoemes20 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So I actually edited all of my posts and was wondering if you could take a look at them, thanks. Posted below:

Misconceptions
Many people consume energy drinks as a source of energy. These beverages can be consumed to help warrant off sleep deprivation and exhaustion. Nevertheless, these beverages are often abused for the extra energy they provide, which consumers believe will be a sort of “high”, which is actually the [| Sugar Rush] that consumers experience after consumption. As a result of this it is often assumed that because these drinks are so widely consumed they will actually have an effect on the amount of energy one may have, leading many to believe that "energy drinks have a 'high' or 'dangerous' amount of caffeine, which is a common misconception. In reality most energy drinks contain significantly less caffeine than the average cup of coffee. With this information it is easy to say that they can be dangerous, but if consumed excessively or against medical advice.
 * As stated in my reversion of this edit, the impression this content gives is one of being "on a soapbox", WP:SOAP, as opposed to a conclusion from strong reviews, which are not present. I would say this is unencyclopedic and not usable. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Effects
Energy drinks could be causing some major damage to the community consuming them: Youth. As the youth continues to consume more and more sugar they are being provided with more health issues such as "Type 2 Diabetes", "Cavities", "Early onset rheumatoid arthritis", "Heartsease, heart attacks, and strokes", and so much more. Typically these are issues that come around later in life, which are now affecting the youth of today's society.
 * The BMJ review concludes that "More research is needed to explore the short-term and long-term impacts in all spheres, including health, behaviour and education", indicating that this research is not well-enough developed to include in an encyclopedia. Not usable. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Demographic
Youth is often the targeted age group as seen in a survey covered in 2015 on youth from the ages of 12 to 24, 80% of respondents reported that most energy drink ads can be seen on television, posters or signs in convenience or grocery stores, and online ads. Zoemes20 (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Zoemes20 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit looks hurried, with little care for English composition, spacing, or WP:REFPUNCT. If you're here just to post an edit for a class credit, then please don't bother, as it requires other editors to clean up your careless editing. We're writing for an international audience, so please don't use words like "ad" - it is an article on Wikipedia, linkable to advertisement. Think of your audience as a high school student in a developing country of Africa, just learning to read English -- we want our editing to be as close to perfect English as possible. The research is not a review, and -- I do not expect you to know this -- the MDPI journal is considered predatory, meaning the authors actually pay the journal to publish their work, usually without editorial review. Wikipedia frowns on this practice; WP:SOURCEWATCH. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, using the DOI with Citer produced the correct format for your references. It is useful to add the pmid, pmc and/or URL (last two not always available) numbers into the formatted reference, as I did under "Effects" and "Demographic". This helps users see more information. See the reference details now, then compare them to your version. --Zefr (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
Hi Zoe -- something happened to your previous edit, and content was lost. Be sure to check an edit in "show preview" before saving the edit to make sure everything looks like you want it. You should go back to your edit and copy/paste what you intended to have to restore all the previous content. Also, your talk page (or sandbox) is a place to practice editing for the article, including reference formatting. You are not using the Citer tool I gave you (PubMed is not a reference by itself). Fyi: You can provide a PubMed abstract on a talk page by using this format: PMID 30795611. This study PMID 30770983 is primary research, so is not useable. I'll check back later to see your progress. --Zefr (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)