User talk:Annakeiii
| This user is a student editor in San_Diego_State_University/ED690_Methods_of_Inquiry_(Summer_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Annakeiii, 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
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I have some notes for your work:
- Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.
- Essentially, these just need secondary sources to justify using it and to back up the claims, especially ones phrased like this:
- Findings suggest that encounters of racism and peer pressures to identify to a single racial group during preadolescence and adolescence occurs, similar to stages three and four of Kerwin and Ponterotto’s theory.
- You want to make sure that you either attribute or avoid using things like this without a secondary source, as it comes across as original research. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what is explicitly stated in the source material.
- Avoid wording like "on the contrary", "however", and "nonetheless", as that comes across as a personal viewpoint or original research. It's better to use wording like "conversely" or "This Person differed in their opinion/belief, stating that...". This gets the same point across without it coming across like a personal statement. Sometimes it's just better to avoid using the word itself, as sometimes the sentence will work without it.
I hope this helps - this are mostly just finetuning. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will say that I removed the subsection about studies that used the types of models. This is a bit more detail than Wikipedia uses and adding them to the article can be seen as original research, like you're comparing the studies. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)