User talk:Alyssanapoli

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_water

Canned Water

Are some areas over or underdeveloped? The article is definitely underdeveloped. It introduces the idea of Canned Water and explains what it is and why it is important but could definitely use some more facts and data behind it.

Is the writing neutral? Yes

Does each claim have a citation? Yes

Are the citations reliable? Yes

What can you add? More facts, data, and my opinion on why canned water could be a better way of packaging water.

Two sources: https://drinkopenwater.com https://www.cannedwater4kids.com/index.php?/why-water/cans/

Feedback on Article Contribution

Alyssa, Great information to add to the article! I think probably you could edit the sentences in the article that say "In contrast, 65% of all aluminum cans are recycled. Making aluminum cans the most recycled beverage container on the planet." by adding your resources and putting a range (55-70%) instead of the 65%. Try to think about how to take the information from your 3 sources, plus what the article already has and make it into one or two new sentences that convey that information, and then has all 4 citations (your 3, plus the one already in the article).

Drshimizu (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr, Shimizu,

Great idea, thank you very much! I will most definitely add in that information when making my final edits to my wikipedia article. I agree with your recommendation and will not only add in the range but also look for ways in which I could better incorporate the sources that I chose for the article. I will add from one of my sources, "Aluminum is infinitely recyclable. Aluminum can be recycled over and over without losing quality or volume. The same can't be said for plastic and cartons. Aluminum is lightweight. Aluminum bottles and cans are much lighter than their heavy glass counterparts."(Drinkopenwater.com) This fact will benefit the article because it further proves how aluminum is a better alternative for drinking water.

Canned water

I noticed that your edits to the canned water article were reverted. The big problem is that your work wasn't formatted there were all kinds of weird copy-paste artifacts, like that example image. You're writing for the most widely-read information source in the world - your work needs to be more polished before you move it to mainspace.

In addition, your tone wasn't right. Wikipedia articles don't ask questions, they don't talk to the reader. Have a careful look at the Editing Wikipedia brochure that I linked to, especially pages 7-9 which deal with layout. And one more thing - remember that when someone reverts your additions, you should never just revert them. Discuss the issue on the talk page, figure out what went wrong. Don't just try to force your work into the article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assignments

Hi. Your instructor can grade your assignment even if it's not in mainspace - in fact, we won't work with classes if that isn't the case.

I added good and valuable info so i am sorry you did not like it

I wasn't the one who removed your additions, I was just giving you feedback as to how to improve it.

but there are much worse wikipedia articles out there with not even correct/valid info.

The fact that worse stuff exists doesn't justify making this article worse.

At least mine was researched and cited and valid

It wasn't actually, and that's part of the problem. You simply added some website URLs in parentheses. That's not actually a citation. You can revisit the training slide that explains how to do this here.

Marketwatch is a website with many thousands of pages. Pointing to the top level domain like this isn't useful. It's also a decidedly mixed source, since it includes blogs and republishes a lot of press releases, neither of which are valid sources. [drinkopenwater.com Open Water] is a manufacturer's website - it exists to market their product. Advertisers are not valid sources. But the biggest problem is that your edit made a mess of the page's formatting. Sure, it was a mistake, and that's fine - everyone makes mistakes. The problem is that you re-added the material without fixing the errors. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I also noticed that your additions included text copied directly from the at least one of your sources. That's an infringement of copyright and runs afoul of Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, this means that your additions to the article will need to be deleted. Please revisit the Plagiarism and Copyright training module. Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]