User talk:Kmiller22
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Kmiller22, 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)
Please add goals to Talk page
[edit]Hi, you're assigned to Drug metabolism, however the other members of your group are not, and there are no editing goals posted to the Talk page. Please update. Health policy (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
[edit]
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Marasmus have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Studies as sources
[edit]Hi! I saw that you used this study to back up the claim "However, one study looking at insights into Chinese perspectives on DNR showed that the majority of DNR orders in Taiwan were signed by surrogates." This poses a bit of an issue since it wasn't accompanied by a secondary source that backs up the claim.
The issue with studies is that they're primary sources for the data compiled by its creators, who are also typically the ones who conducted the research. The publisher can't serve as a verification of the study, as they only review to ensure that there are no obvious errors that would invalidate the study and determine if the study is something that should be published. They don't provide any commentary, which a secondary source would. Studies are also fairly limited out of necessity, as there's almost always not possible to survey every person that could fall into the study area. As such, the findings are seen as only really true for those persons who participated. The results could differ if they were to survey people from a different area of Taiwan, with a different ailment than cancer, or from different backgrounds or income levels. The secondary source will help provide that context. You could also have someone ask why one study was chosen over another that may give different results or one that isn't in English.
That said, it is generally OK to use the literature reviews in a study as long as you're careful to avoid the parts where the author uses them to discuss their study. Offhand it looks like this source could work. I can't access it since it's hidden behind a paywall, but they do cite this study as a reference. I found it via this search.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)