User talk:Robinsonmaddux2000
| This user is a student editor in Bellarmine_University/Introduction_to_Graduate_Study_in_Communication_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Robinsonmaddux2000, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Your edits to Feminist Media Studies
[edit]Hi. I reverted your additions to the Feminist Media Studies article because they weren't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. For starters, you need to include inline references to reliable secondary sources. Taylor & Francis isn't a secondary source about the journal, and websites like Publons and Resurchify aren't reliable sources. SCImago Journal Rank might be ok, but you'd need to attribute the claimed sourced to them. A few more specific things
Feminist Media Studies provides a forum for researchers
- "Provides a forum" is promotional and metaphorical language. It's a fancy way of saying "publishes" that's designed to sound like more than it is. It's also less accessible for someone who isn't familiar with this sort of rhetoric, or who isn't as fluent in English. Plain language is best.
The journal has 456,000 downloads and views each year
- Anything that's likely to change over time needs to clearly indicate when. Over what years was this true? This is also true for the editorial board. I don't believe that listing the full editorial board is likely to be of much use to the casual reader. I can't imagine who would read a dense block of text like that, and what useful information they'd take away from that.
Any article in this journal has undergone a rigorous peer review process, being anonymously reviewed by at least two other scholars.
- The level of rigor in peer review at the journal isn't a fact that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, it's a claim made by the journal. You need to be careful with this distinction.
will need to submit their article on the journal's website
- Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to include "how-to" information. Anyone who assumes that they could submit an article to the journal via Wikipedia probably wouldn't make it through peer review. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)