User talk:Bmb.05

Hi Bmb.05! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Bmb.05, 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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi, I've moved your draft to your sandbox, as you had posted it in your talk page. I have some notes for you. Some of them are direly important that you address before moving any work live.

• My first concern is that you used a study in your work. The issue with studies, especially with anything health oriented, is that they're primary sources for any of the claims or research conducted by its writers, who are most often the people who did the research. The reason that this is an issue is for several reasons: the first is that the studies aren't verified - the publisher that puts out the work only reviews it to make sure that there are no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate the research. They don't actually do any in-depth verification, nor do they provide any commentary on the study. Another issue is that of context. Studies are limited out of necessity, as few researchers have the time, staff, and money to make a truly comprehensive study of a given topic area. This means that a study is only true for the specific sample that they tested or surveyed. So for example, if a study surveyed 50 people in New York the findings would only be applicable to them, as the results would likely differ if they were to survey 50 people in China or even 50 people in California.

As such, if you want to use a study you need to have an independent, secondary source that reviews the study in some format, like a literature review. The Nature Bathing source looks to be a literature review, so that's fine to use, but Prescribing Nature Therapy for Improved Mental Health looks to be a study so it needs a secondary source.

• Make sure that you're not writing this like an essay - in other words, make sure that you're not writing persuasively in order to get readers to see things in a specific light, such as that nature therapy is effective.

• Also keep in mind that there's an existing article on nature therapy, so you don't have to write a completely new article from scratch. My recommendation would be to review the article and see if there's anything that needs to be fleshed out. Creating a new article would be counter productive for a few reasons - the first is that a duplicate article would almost certainly be removed from Wikipedia. The second is that the current article covers more than your current draft, so the draft as it is now would end up removing a lot of content from the article.

Finally, since this is a health related article it's vitally important that you take this extra training module on editing health and psychology topics. Health related articles are held to a bit higher standard than non-health articles, so it's definitely important that you read this training module and ensure that any additions are as neutral as possible and use the strongest possible sources. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for moving my draft to the correct place. Because there is someone else currently editing "Nature Therapy" and what I change goes towards my grade, my sandbox consists of the version that I started editing before the other editor did so much to the article. My professor will grade based off of the earlier version in my sandbox, but when editing the actual article I will take into consideration what the other editor has already done. As far as my source goes, are you saying that I need to delete the history portion that I received from "Prescribing Nature Therapy for Improved Mental Health" if I cannot find another source that says the same? Bmb.05 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the late reply - I didn't see this until now. But essentially yes if you're pulling any of the content that was created during the study. If the study has a literature review section that you're pulling from, then you can use that. One thing I do need to caution you about - the page is currently up for deletion so your edits may be reverted or changed up completely. It's important that you not undo these edits and that you communicate and collaborate with the other editors during this time, as there may likely be quite a few people trying to save the article from deletion. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)