User talk:Aubreeaucoin

Aubreeaucoin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Aubreeaucoin! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi! I noticed that you moved your sandbox to the mainspace. It looks like you were trying to create an article for The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm, but Wikipedia already has an article for that work here. You can add some of your information to that article, but Wikipedia cannot have two articles on the same work. I've moved your sandbox back to your sandbox so you don't lose the work.

I do have a few suggestions, though:

1. The following sentence needs to be sourced: "Koedt's article sparked a frenzy of responses with opinions ranging from total agreement to total dismissal." You have one source in the paragraph for this, but this looks like it's backing up a quote. Every claim like this needs to be backed up with a source that explicitly states the claim. The problem with this is that otherwise this can be seen as original research, which cannot be in an encyclopedia article.
2. Be careful of original research. I have to state this twice because this is something that is very important. Be very careful of OR, which is comprised of personal opinions and conclusions. OR might be based on existing research, but unless the conclusions/opinions are explicitly cited in reliable sources it's considered to be unusable for Wikipedia's purposes. This can be somewhat tough when approaching Wikipedia as a school assignment because up to this point in time you're likely more used to writing academic papers where OR is not only permitted, but encouraged. There's nothing wrong with this in academic papers, but encyclopedias need to be based on things that have already been stated elsewhere. The "OR" might be accurate, but it still has to be backed up with a RS that directly states the claims.

Now that said, what you have in the sandbox section is pretty well written- all you need to be able to do is make sure that the sources in the article explicitly back up what is written. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)