User talk:Aoka222
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Aoka222, 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) 18:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Non-binary gender
[edit]Hi, I saw that you picked to edit the article on non-binary gender. I wanted to give you a bit of a head's up on this topic - it's an article that is held under sanctions. What this means is that the article is in a topic area that can be fairly controversial and is often edited. As such, it is more closely monitored than other articles. Now what this means to you is that anything you add to the article will have to be very neutrally written and have the strongest possible sourcing. Pay very close attention to the reliable source guidelines for medical topics (if writing about medical and psychology areas of the topic). If anything is removed you will need to discuss the edit on the talk page before re-adding the content.
This isn't meant to spook you or anything - I just wanted to give you a head's up. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Shalor, thank you for your message! I have added drafts of what I would like to add on my sandbox. I was wondering if I can ask for your feedback and any recommendations you have for improvements/considerations before moving this to the article page. Aoka222 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Shoot! I'm sorry that I didn't see this until now! Offhand the work looks good. My only note is that I saw that you used two studies as a source. Be very cautious with studies as they're seen as primary sources for any of the research, theories, or conclusions created by its author(s). As such, it needs a secondary source that reviews the study or covers the specific study claim that's used in the article. The training module on health and psychology related topics covers this. While this doesn't fall into those areas, the module's perspectives on studies is still valid for non-medical content. However that said, if the studies had literature reviews or did a general review of existing literature (or the lack thereof), you can use that as long as you don't use anything that is specific to this study. In other words, if they did a general review on the literature and stated that there weren't many studies out there, that is OK to use since it isn't a theory unique to the study they conducted. However if they were to review a piece of literature and say that it's proof that their study is needed or helps prove their claims, that shouldn't be used. I hope this makes sense - using studies is kind of a tricky area to navigate on Wikipedia.
- Offhand it looks like you used a general statement from the studies, so I don't think that there's any real need to worry about this. I just wanted to give you a head's up. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)