User talk:Frich25

Welcome!
Hello, Frich25, 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) 21:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Forbes Contributors
Any forbes.com reference with /sites in the URL is an unofficial blog and very likely does not meet our sourcing guidelines. Please stop re-adding it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I wanted to give you a more in-depth response since my answer to the question is "yes and no".

The short answer is that Science Direct can be used as a source. I'm not entirely sure why some of the sources don't come up completely, but sometimes the citation box won't pull up the citations completely. If this happens, the only thing to be done is to just manually input the content by hand via the manual tab on the citation box. Science Direct itself will definitely have good sourcing, so it's not a matter of it not being reliable - it's more than likely just something that happens as a result of the website's coding.

However that said, it looks like the specific source is a research study, which can't be used as a source unless it's accompanied by a secondary, independent source that discusses the findings. The reason for this is that a study is a primary source for any of the claims and data produced by their research (ie, the results/findings) or the individual claims of what the researchers hope to find with their study. Keep in mind that the journal publishing the study doesn't provide these things for the study since they can't reproduce the study and all they're looking for are things that would immediately invalidate the study. Also, since studies are fairly limited out of necessity, a study's findings are only really true for the specific group that was surveyed at that particular point in time. For example, the results may have been different if they'd chosen different people from another country or culture. The secondary source is needed since it would help provide both context and verification as well as commentary on the study's findings and claims. That said, if a study does a literature review you can use their literature reviews - you just can't use the rest of the study as a source without a secondary source. Offhand it looks like the study is cited in these publications, so one of them should be usable to help back up the study.

I hope that this answers your question! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)