User talk:Brittanyota

Welcome!

Hello, Brittanyota, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biracial Identity Development

Hi Brittanyota. I'm Adam, the Wiki Education Foundation content expert for your course. I've taken a look at your article and I have a few comments:

A large portion of the article focuses on 3 modern theories of development and goes into great detail on each. Remember that a reader is coming to the article to see a summary of current research. The first paragraph for each theory gives some context for its creation and application, so what I've done (provisionally! everything on wikipedia can be revered) is removed everythng aside from that. You can and should edit those paragraphs to offer a reader a brief tour of the field. They'll be able to follow the complete procedure by looking at the references.
I think you can add more about the 2000 change to mutliracial identity by finding some contemporary discussion about the topic. I've added a link to an article which has a few sources and you will be able to find others.
Remember that Wikipedia is global and the subject of biracial identity is global. You are focusing on the scholarship here, and for that a look at some historical elements in the US are important, but you'll want to make sure to note when you're talking about the US and not assume the reader or another editor will want only that perspective. You shouldn't need to rename your article to "Biracial identity development in the US" or anything. Nor should you have to rush to internationalize your historical context, just bear it in mind while editing.
The figures you've added, specifically the chart from the Census bureau can be helpful but images of text tables are often not the best way to get information across. A reader on a phone won't be able to read the table all at once and someone reading the page with a screen reader will miss out on it entirely. You also may again want to summarize these trends with references to works looking at demographics in the longer run (bearing in mind that the census itself wasn't the only measure for trends).

Whew, that's a lot of comments! On the plus side I felt the article was largely clear, well referenced and summarizes the academic conversations chosen well. A few edits to the page and it will be further improved. Thanks for your work so far. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Edits

I understand that readers only need a summary of the information - I wonder, however, if the content that was removed (Theory depth) should be kept because there aren't pages with that content elsewhere? Or should pages on the theories be made to link to using that initial information that has been removed? Brittanyota (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]