User talk:Gkyoungren

Welcome!

Hello, Gkyoungren, 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) 19:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Response

Hi! Instructions on how to move work live can be found here, however I have some notes before you move this live:

• This deals with the topic of mental health, so it's very important that you review this training module, which covers editing on medical topics. It'll cover some of the other notes I'm going to leave, as well as

• You use a study to back up some of the claims - studies are seen as primary sources, as they're almost always written by someone who was involved in the research. As such, it's necessary to have a secondary, independent reliable source that either reviews the study (ie, literature review) or a source that covers/mentions the specific information that is being added to the article. The publisher doesn't actually verify the data or provide commentary - they only review to make sure that there are no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate the study, so it's still possible for faulty research to be published. Studies are also limited in their scope, so the results are really only true for that specific group that was studied. We can't guarantee that the findings would be applicable for people in another facility, state, country, or culture, which is another reason why secondary, independent sourcing is important - they can put the findings into a wider context. Finally, there's also a question of notability of the study findings - ie, why were these findings highlighted over another study that may have findings that say something different. The secondary sources would help establish why these findings are notable enough to cover in the article.

The Ted Talk is also potentially a primary source, as it's a person's talk. At the very least be careful and make sure that the person is someone who is seen as an authority on the topic and that this is the strongest possible source. I'm kind of concerned that while the YT video claims that she's an expert, they also note that she's a digital marketer, public speaker and businesswoman rather than a physician. I'm not saying that she can't be a reliable source, just that you should apply caution here.

• Avoid using dated terms such as "today's generation", as this is something that can be quickly dated and also is kind of vague. The study was also from 2008 and covered children between the ages of 7-17, so it would be better to specify the age range and date the study was published. If you can find a source that puts this into a wider perspective, you can write about this in a more general sense, which would be a bit better. So assuming that there is such a source (should be one), it could be written like this:

Children spend nearly 30% of the day exposed to digital technology, at a much higher frequency than prior generations, due to ease of access to devices.

Here are some sources that may be useful - I can't really access them since they're paywalled: [1], [2], [3], [4]. However keep in mind that it's important to make sure that this is tied into why the screen time is pertinent to mental health.

I hope this helps - I've tweaked some of this a little as you used the term "our" in here - it's important to avoid this as it can come across as too casual and also coming across as being written by a specific person. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Shalor!

This is awesome feedback! Thank you so much! I hadn't through twice about the materials I presented and your feedback validates the research process and ensuring that we as authors have a responsibility to review and study the content we wish to post. These are also great resources and I should have access through my student account with GU. In all sincerity, THANK YOU!!! - Gretchen Gkyoungren (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)