User talk:Bksdsu23

Welcome!
Hello, Bksdsu23, 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) 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes about work
Hi - I wanted to give you some notes:


 * It looks like you're pulling heavily from a study. Studies are considered to be primary sources, as they are written by the person who conducted the research or that person's own experiences. As such, studies must be accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one tribe may respond differently than someone from another tribe - or someone from the same tribe, but in a different area. Results can also differ depending on the country and peoples - Native Americans may respond differently than someone in say, Africa or India. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.


 * You also went into a huge amount of detail about these specific studies. This is way more weight than should be given to studies in an article about a more general topic. In order to justify going into more detail than a few sentences you must have secondary, independent sources to justify covering it at length. Even then, however, the content about the studies should only be about 1-2 paragraphs long.
 * Per Google Scholar, the Vaughn study is only cited by three sources. The Gilliard study is better, since it is used as a citation 42 times. With this in mind, the Vaughn study should only have a brief mention, whereas the Gilliard study could have a longer mention - but again, it should be briefer than what's in the article. The same goes for the Stevenson study, which had 43 sources that cited it and Pedro, which was cited 18 times.
 * However there's another thing to consider when it comes to length, which I'll go into next.


 * Keep in mind that this article is supposed to have a global perspective. The content you added focuses specifically on Native Americans. While they definitely should be included in the indigenous education article, the article shouldn't be weighted to give more attention to them as opposed to people in other countries who would fall under this topic area. This is part of the other reason why the content needs to be made more brief, as it puts more of the focus on Native Americans, who will almost certainly have their own unique perspective and form of indigenous education. There should be an article more specifically about them, but since there isn't one at this point in time the content in the main article should take into consideration that the article is global in perspective.

Essentially these need to have secondary sources and they need to be summarized more, as they are too lengthy for a globalized page and they also need those secondary sources to give context to where this pertains to Native Americans in a wider scope. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)