Cdalfons

Welcome!

Hello, Cdalfons, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm Daiyusha. An edit that you recently made to Economy of Singapore seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Daiyusha (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk:History of Singapore

Maybe you accidentally removed the entire page's content when you tried to leave a message on the talk page. I've restored them and added a new section with your original comment at the bottom of the page. Hopefully I've fixed it for you. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 04:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Be cautious when editing talk pages

In this edit, you blanked everything else on Shalor (Wiki Ed)'s talk page. I have restored the content and fixed your post. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding how to edit talk pages. You can also review the information at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Response

Thank you Nihonjoe, PlyrStar93, for fixing the talk page mishaps. Cdalfons, when starting a new comment section, click on the option for "new section" - this will bring up the option for a new comments section. Then, when adding a new comment, go to the specific common section you want to comment in and click the "edit" button next to the section title.

With the citation, this should be in your edit history as long as you were logged in while editing. I don't see any edits of this type, so my thought is that you were not likely logged in when doing the edit. Unfortunately there's no way to make this show up in your edit history and locating it would be kind of difficult - it'd be easier to go through the citation training module again, honestly. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! Here are my notes! I'm going to try something a little different and go section by section:

Intro

This is OK - no issues here.

History/ Term Origins

This section is good, the only thing I have to note here is that the last sentence is unsourced. This is specifically about the term going out of popular use. While it does look like it has, this still needs a source to back it up.

Politics & Religion

• Be careful of phrasing. In one sentence you use the term "most notable" but the way you phrased this is a little wonky. I'd potentially rephrase this as "Scholar Mary Vavus has stated that pollsters of the Republican party noted how NASCAR’s holds a strong connection to Christianity, citing NASCAR's prayer before every race as an example." This is still a bit clunky but helps make it a bit clearer who is making the claim.
• Also be careful to make sure that you're avoiding persuasive arguments. This is probably going to be one of the tougher things to get used to with Wikipedia, since persuasive language and arguments is used so heavily in our daily and academic lives. Avoid "if... then..." type statements and the use of wording like "despite". For example, I'd rephrase the sentence "Despite the term being coined by Democrats, its use came to empower the Republican party." as "Initially coined by Democrats, over time use of the term came to empower the Republican party." This kind of disarms the persuasive language.
• In this section you use the phrase "Note how". In this situation you're using it as an example, however by using it as an example you're doing a form of original research and kind of making your own original point. If it's something that was highlighted in the main source you used for the section then I'd more clearly attribute it to them, such as "NASCAR dads were depicted by media outlets as being very patriotic and the love for the sport rolled over to their beliefs in religion, with Vavus pointing to headlines such as "The High-Octane Patriots Holding the Keys to the White House" as examples." It's generally not really necessary to use an example though, since the prior sentence (which I merged into the example I gave previously) is good on its own.

Overall this section is good- it just needs some fine tuning. My only other word of caution here is to be careful of using the same sources too much. The academic pieces you use are definitely good sources, but if you can find more sourcing it would definitely be helpful to show a good variety and depth of coverage. I understand that this term may not be too heavily covered in academia, though.

NASCAR Family

• Be careful and make sure that you're not too casual in your writing. For example, the section starts off with "NASCAR and several media platforms attempted to make the "NASCAR dad" a positive icon. While everyone may not have agreed with this, media and especially TV network stations stated that NASCAR was a family sport. This notion came from the idea that the main attraction to a race was the family atmosphere. Thus, the image that was attempting to be formulated, was that the "NASCAR dad" was a family man" I feel that this could be rephrased a little to make it more to the point. Here's my suggestion:

Attempts were made by NASCAR and several media platforms to co-opt the term "NASCAR dad". Their intent was to re-make the image into a positive one of a family man, as NASCAR was frequently portrayed as being a family sport with a family-friendly atmosphere by the media and TV network stations. This move was met with some criticism."

This should get the same point across but streamline it a little.

• I'd leave off the section "Opinions of NASCAR's Family Man Idea and Identity". The issue here is that from what I can see, it doesn't look like they're discussing NASCAR's attempt to take over the term but rather the term in general. These two aren't the same thing so it's not really appropriate to use them like this. They also need to be put in prose format. This could maybe be in a section that's purely about reception to the term as a whole, especially as I'd hate to lose the back and forth between the two NASCAR drivers.

Swing Vote

• This has two major issues. The first is that it's somewhat redundant to the sub-section "Democratic Party Objective". The second is that it kind of has a persuasive essay vibe with the use of things like "for the most part, this is not true". It's generally not a good idea to make a definitive statement without a lot of coverage or to phrase something as true or not true, as these words come with certain connotations. (IE, the opposite of a truth is a lie.)

I definitely think that you have a good idea here - I'd maybe just merge this into the Democratic Party Objective section. Maybe along these lines?

Initially coined by Democrats, over time use of the term came to empower the Republican party. At the time the Democratic party believed that most people were drawn to their approach but that they were blinded by minute value topics that took precedence. The "NASCAR dad" population was believed were believed to be the most valuable swing voters during the 2004 elections, as during this time the Democrats' political demographics were primarily dominated by men earning higher income. In order to appeal to all economic levels, they needed to find a way to appeal to the lower income earning male population. They categorized this group as "NASCAR dads" in an attempt to make it easier to appeal to them. Michael Levy has stated that this approach was faulty, as this was the wrong population to target. In a report with ABC News Gary Langer wrote that the southern white male population had been overwhelmingly Republican and that this specific population only accounted for 2 percent of the total population. Langer opined that the Democratic party should instead focus on the independent voter population and white Catholics, as these two groups made up a much larger political demographic than "NASCAR dads".

This is mostly your own work so you can use and retool this as much as you like.

Overall I think that you have some good work here. The sources are definitely strong and at this point it's a matter of just doing some general editing and shifting around. I think that this is about ready to be moved live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi! Your prospective changes look good! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)