User talk:Sareyah02

Welcome!

Hello, Sareyah02, 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
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your draft

@Sareyah02 and Sunkissed17: I moved your draft back to User:Sunkissed17/AfricanFeminism.combecause it isn't ready for mainspace.

The biggest issue is sourcing. Everything in a Wikipedia article needs to be supported by a reliable source, and you need to include inline citations immediately after the statements they support. That means that you need a minimum of one citation per paragraph (assuming that one citation supports everything in the paragraph), and you can't have any text after that citation. You currently have three references listed for the article - Billene Seyoum's Wikipedia article (Wikipedia articles are never reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles), Rosebell Kagumire's personal website (which, as a personal website, does not meet the requirements for either a reliable source or an independent one) and African Feminism's website (which might be usable as a source of some information, but isn't an independent source).

Wikipedia articles need to demonstrate notability, and to do so, the requirement is that the subject of the article is covered in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. That needs to be the starting point for your article.

The "What the Website has to Offer" isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. As it's currently written, it's "original research" in the sense that it's your own observations about the website. This isn't allowed under Wikipedia policy. Even if you could find a reliable source that says all this, it would still probably fall under "how to" information, which is also something that's explicitly excluded under Wikipedia's core policies. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sareyah02 and Sunkissed17: I noticed that you moved the article back to mainspace again without implementing my feedback. Please don't continue doing this. If you have questions about my feedback, please get in touch. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sareyah02 As I mentioned, the biggest issue is sourcing. You need to include reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• Your first source is the website itself. As a source isn't independent of itself, it can't be used to establish notability, though it might be usable for some non-controversial information.
• Your second source, profilesinfo.com, doesn't appear to be a reliable source either. The only source of information about the website seems to be its Privacy Policy, which lists the operator. But there's no editorial board, no evidence of fact-checking, no authorship for the posts. While that kind of information isn't necessarily enough to establish reliability of the source, it's impossible to establish reliability without it.
• The third source, Kagumire's profile at Al Jazeera, isn't independent. A contributor's profile is likely to be authored by them, and thus isn't usable. In addition, it only points to Kagumire's notability, not African Feminism's notability.
• The fourth site, InterviewHer, does point to Kagumire's notability somewhat, but again, it's a profile meant to promote her, so it probably wouldn't count as an independent site. In addition, of course, it's about Kagumire, and not the website. Just because a website has a notable editor doesn't mean the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for a stand-alone article.

The second issue is the layout of the article. A Wikipedia article should start with a lead section that summarizes all the major points of the article. Look at some other articles about organizations to get a sense of what sorts of sections they'd normally have. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)