User talk:Acuza

Welcome!
Hello, Acuza, 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Studies
Hi! I wanted to give you a quick head's up about studies. These are seen as primary sources on Wikipedia because they're written by the researchers who conducted the study itself and made the conclusions. To use a study you need to have an independent, reliable source that discusses the study and its findings, like a literature review. The reasons for this are these: the publisher only reviews the study to make sure that there are no glaring errors that would immediately invalidate it - they don't provide any commentary or context for the study and they're also unable to reproduce the study to truly verify the findings. Studies are also limited in scope, as they can't survey every person or pursue all possible avenues as they don't have the time and money to do this. As such, their sample group is limited and any findings will only be applicable for that specific group at that particular time. The secondary sources will help give that commentary and context.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft note
Hi! I wanted to leave you some notes on your draftwork at User:Acuza/gendered_processes.


 * Make sure that you're only summarizing the source material. We can only state what is explicitly stated in the sources, so we can't make our own conclusions, theories, or ask questions of the reader. There are some places in your work that come across as original research, as you have phrases like "could also be explained". This makes it seem like you're taking source material and then drawing your own conclusion based on it. If you're summarizing what someone else has said, these claims need to be attributed along the lines of "This Person has stated that this could also be explained by...".


 * This needs more sourcing to back up the claims in the article, as there are large portions that look to be unsourced. Also, I noticed that you're using studies to back up the claims. As stated prior, studies are seen as primary sources on Wikipedia and as such, cannot be used to back up claims unless they are accompanied by an independent, secondary source that covers the study in a format like a literature review, thus verifying the study's findings and providing context, as well as helping to show where the study should be highlighted over others.

Both of these are very important to fix before moving your work live. Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)