User talk:Meghankoos

Welcome!
Hello, Meghankoos, 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)

Note
Hi Meghankoos, I have some quick notes for you about your addition:


 * Avoid making point of view statements, as these are inherently non-neutral and can be subjective to the reader. For example, while one person could see something as important another could disagree and say that something else is more important. Point of view statements can also be seen as original research, as it would be you making a judgement on something that may not have been stated in the source material. If it's a quote or otherwise stated in the source, it must be attributed to the person making the claim.


 * Avoid making "we", "you", and "I" statements. Wikipedia articles should be written in third person.


 * You use a lot of quotes in this. While it's not verboten to use quotes, they should be used relatively sparingly and only when something cannot be written in your own words. The quote also needs to be surrounded by context to show why that specific quote is necessary to use in the article. In the importance section I noted four quotes, which make up almost the entirety of the section, which is too much.


 * You also used studies as sources. Be extremely cautious with these, as they are seen as primary sources for any of the research and claims produced by its researchers, who are almost always the people who write the paper. Secondary sources are needed to not only give context to the findings but to also help provide verification, neither of which are provided by the publishers of the study. Publishers traditionally only review for errors that would immediately invalidate the study and to determine if it's something that would be worth publishing - the editorial and peer review process doesn't guarantee that bad research won't slip through the cracks. This article goes over some of the issues that can pop up with research and the first on the list is about someone whose published work was fraudulent.
 * Another issue with studies is that the information is only really true for the people who were surveyed. For example, what may be true for one group may not be for another group on the other side of the United States. Something to also take into consideration is that the article is meant to look at this on a global scale, so what may be true for Native Americans may not be true for people outside of the United States - or even other people within the United States who may speak another language. For example, Welsh is a vulnerable language per this article, so if there is a community of Welsh speakers in the US, they may have a different experience than a Native American community.

This needs to be summarized up a bit more and anything based on studies needs to be sourced with an independent, secondary source or removed. This also needs to be globalized. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)