Wikipedia talk:Training/For students/Sandbox edits for new articles

This is all good stuff and I'd make one small addition:

It's at this point that I usually advise new editors to make use of any experienced Wikipedians that they have encountered (even me!) to look over their draft. Alternatively, for an existing article, the article history is their friend: new editors usually need to be shown that they can see the main contributors from the history - and they are often the best folks to get to know and to help them with that topic. Finally, there's often a WikiProject that would be overjoyed to have a new editor interested in their subject. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * RexxS: I think this is a good idea. I've added the alternative of asking an experienced editor you've encountered. WikiProject may be good, but it's really hit or miss depending on the project; a great many are completely inactive.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite right about Wikiprojects. I often have the advantage of delivering training to a themed audience (like a learned society), where it's relatively easy to check how active the relevant Wikiproject is. It's then easy to recommend WikiProject Chemistry to the Royal Society of Chemistry, but I take your point about the potential for disappointment if you steer new editors towards a moribund project. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)