User talk:Laylaserna
| This user is a student editor in George_Washington_University/UW1020_M68_(Spring) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Laylaserna, 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) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Hi! I've fixed the first source for you - it just needed some formatting tweaks.
I do want to let you know that this source is a study, which poses an issue since it's a primary source for any of the claims and research conducted by its authors. The reason why this poses an issue is because the study is not actually verified by its publisher (JAMA Psychiatry), as publishers tend to only review studies to ensure that there are no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate the study - they don't provide any sort of commentary either. This in turn poses an issue since the study's findings would only be true for those specific people or subjects that were used for the study. A study's findings can greatly differ depending on who participates, as their results can be impacted by their location, culture, age, and so on. For example, a person in California may give different results than someone in Vermont - however even within the same state, a person would likely respond differently if their area is especially good (or bad) with mental health resources. A secondary source will be able to verify the findings, typically by comparing them with ones from similar studies, which would also give the information more context. As such, if you would like to use this source you need to find a secondary source that reviews the study in some form or fashion. I would check to see if it's a part of a literature review anywhere. (On a related side note, many studies do a literature review prior to listing the information from their study - if the information you pulled was from that, then this is fine. It's also fine to use a literature review in another study that reviews this particular one.)
Be very careful of the term "recent", as this is time sensitive and also fairly subjective. For example, someone may say that findings from 2016 or 2017 are no longer recent, as they're 2+ years old, even if this is the latest data available. As such, I'd probably title the section "National trends in suicide attempts in the United States". The reason I've left out the "among adults" part is that this section should be set up so that information about young adults and younger can be added in the future. However keep in mind that you should also make sure to review the article to ensure that this info isn't already stated somewhere in the article, such as the particularly large intro. I'm not saying that you shouldn't post this, just make sure to avoid redundancy.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)