User talk:Seog Jae Kang

Welcome!

Hello, Seog Jae Kang, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What does the article (or section) do well?

I think the subject matter is very interesting and you definitely have the core components of the article down. The sections mostly make sense and it's info I would definitely want to see on the page.

What changes would you suggest overall?

You're definitely in the beginning stages, but yeah just more substance in each of the sections. Although the subsections make sense, if you don't have enough information then you can just combine things into one section. Also, I think the language the article is written in could be improved. Other than a few grammar errors, it could take on a more professional, unbiased tone.

For the fetal hearing development section, I think that you could definitely expand on things in the text and also have a visual similar to your table to support it. I don't think the table makes a lot of sense in this context. The image you added also isn't very relevant, but I don't know what sort of images are available for use on Wikimedia.

I would definitely also move the controversy section to the very end. Usually, Wikipedia articles start out explaining everything about the topic, and then address controversy at the end since it isn't necessarily an essential piece of information you would need to know, but it is interesting.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

Change the tone/style to more professional and neutral and add to every section. This is a really interesting topic that I think has a lot of research, but right now there isn't too much in the actual article. Etc cyt (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Using the best sources for medical content

Hi, I wanted to let you know that your sandbox was not ready for mainspace, so it has been moved back to your sandbox. You can find it here: User:Seog Jae Kang/Prenatal music. I wanted to make sure you were aware of requirements for sourcing medical content on Wikipedia. Biomedical content must be sourced according to specific Wikipedia rules. You can only use secondary sources that are reliable. Popular press articles and primary sources are not acceptable. Instead, you should be citing material like systematic reviews. Please carefully review our training for editing health or psychology topics. Make sure that every source you are using in your sandbox complies with the medical rules before attempting to move your content out of the sandbox. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Prenatal music

Hi. I moved your article back to a sandbox because it isn't ready to go live yet. It's now at User:Seog Jae Kang/Prenatal music. Any topic related to human medicine needs to be based off of the highest-quality sources - preferably recent systematic review articles published within the last five years.

Three of the sources you used - Tinylove, Aptami and Healthline - don't even to appear to meet the most basic standard for Wikipedia. Sanford Health News doesn't appear to meet that standard either. UNICEF might be a reliable source, but a YouTube video from them probably isn't good enough for medical content. The PNAS article is a peer-reviewed article from a good source, but it's not a review and it's fairly old. The PLOS similarly is a study of just 12 people, and it's also old.

Beyond that, your article has some problems with layout - for example, your lead section doesn't adequately summarize all the main points of the article. See pages 7-9 in the Editing Wikipedia brochure I linked to for more help with layout. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)