Taken from User talk:Michael D. Turnbull; see page history for attribution. Copied so that I, Quxyz, can archive it on my own terms and access it easier.
@Quxyz Using academic sources is fine: I do it all the time when I write about chemistry. The main problem to avoid is to make your draft itself a new synthesis of these sources, which is form of original research that is not allowed in Wikipedia. That means that you have to base most of what you say on secondary sources: either reviews or books, in practice, although sometimes experts writing elsewhere can be fine. Your cite to Greg Holland seems to fall into that category. Can you expand that cite to specify the book it came from?
To give an example of the possible pitfalls, you write The most reliable method of estimating pressure from wind involves using..... That could seem like an evaluative statement made by you. Actually, it is possibly OK: the source you are quoting says Of the many different types of satellite imagery, the one that storm scientists have found best measures a storm’s intensity is the infrared Dvorak image. However, if I were you I'd use wording nearer to what this source actually says and start with something like "According to C. Burt.....". And then I'd worry that Burt seems to be writing a blog, so I might look for a more reliable source! Another suggestion would be to make the existence of your draft known to others who write about weather events. I've noted several editors asking at the Teahouse for advice on tropical storms. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man, it's so weird being called an experienced editor. I mean less than a week ago I had to go up to an editor to ask for advice on writing an article. Anyways, I'll look into the questions. One thing I noticed is that some of the questions have mundanly complicated answers or I don't have a good enough memory to remember my time as a new editor; is it okay if I pass some questions? ✶Quxyz✶17:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
