User talk:BriannaDames1

Welcome!
Hello, BriannaDames1, 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) 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Work notes
Hi! I see that you moved your work live. I have some notes for you!


 * I saw that you used studies as sources without pairing them with a secondary source. Studies are seen as primary sources on Wikipedia and as such, should be accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason they're seen as primary sources is that the material published within the study (claims, research, etc) were conducted by their authors (or at least they were tied to it somehow). 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 area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. 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.
 * Something else to keep in mind is that some of the studies are older (one is from 1984), so a secondary source that is more recent could help show where the results from the study are still pertinent to modern day.


 * Avoid statements that come across as an interpretation or opinion on the source material, as we can only summarize what has been stated as opposed to reflecting on the source material. Phrases like "it suggests" or "it can be assumed" should be avoided. Now if the claims were coming from the source material (ie, the author was the one suggesting or assuming) then they can be added - they just need to be attributed within the sentence.

You have some good work here, so the main things to do would be to pair the studies with secondary sources and to make sure to attribute claims. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * These issues are still present in the live article - you must have non-primary sources to back up the studies. You also need to work on the subjective statements, as well as avoid referring to things as "modern day" or "today's society" - this is vague and it's also something that can quickly become outdated. For example, a source from 2015 - or even from last year - may not be seen as up to date. There's also the issue of globalization, as what may be current or true for one country may not be the case for the next. This is the reason why using studies can be so problematic, as they only survey a relatively small amount of people and may not be representative of people on a global scale.
 * I'm concerned that these additions may be challenged and removed. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)