User talk:Mommyoftwokings

Welcome!
Hello, Mommyoftwokings, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --PsychDocNY (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! On my talk page you posted the following and had a response from Marchjuly. I wanted to make sure that you saw it:
 * I need help with... im trying to move my work to main space but its not allowing me. also the more icon inst showing up can you please assists thank you --Mommyoftwokings (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Was this the edit you were trying to make? That was content you added to Depression in childhood and adolescence, but I've removed it for now because it's not quite ready (at least in my opinion) to be added to the article. Some of it seemed a bit redundant to what's already covered in that particular section and some of it had a kind of original research feel to it and not a very encyclopedic tone to it. In additions, the sources you were trying to cite also weren't really formatted properly, at least not how they should be for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you can work on some of these things and then re-add it. Most of the time articles are just corrected as by anyone who comes along, but since you're a student and this appears to be part of your class project, I thought you might want to try and do so first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking over the work, I do share in their concern:


 * There are some sentence fragments, such, as "And doing so can be cause damage to an individual mentally, physically and emotionally."
 * The writing style is fairly casual and doesn't use the more formal style that Wikipedia uses. You also want to avoid addressing the reader as you, as it is problematic for several reasons. One is a style preference, since Wikipedia uses third person, but it is also because using "you" does presume things of the reader, which should be avoided. The above link in this bullet point will explain this in more depth.
 * Avoid using subjective terms like "great" since that will be dependent on the reader. Some may see talk therapy as good, some may not. Subjective and opinion terms should not be written in Wikipedia's voice - if they're pulled from the source then opinions and claims like this should be clearly attributed. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what is explicitly stated in the source material - drawing conclusions on our own is original research. It's important for this to not come across as a reflection on the topic.
 * The citations need to be made in-line rather than written out in the way that they were.
 * With the content, this should flow more with the other content in the section. Since the general topic of depression in childhood is already mentioned in the article, this can go more directly to the topic of talk therapy. Since you're adding to the lead for this section, it doesn't have to go into a lot of detail since that would be in the sections for the specific types of talk therapy. You want to also avoid redundancy, so if the content is already stated then it's not really needed to list it again.
 * Make sure that the material is specific to talk therapy instead of therapy in general. Some of this felt a little general to therapy as a whole.
 * I noticed that both of the sources you used were studies, which poses an issue of primary sources. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're 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 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.

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've moved the sandbox back to your userspace, as the above points are still an issue. Keep in mind that you're not going to be graded on what sticks, rather you'll be graded on effort and if you've completed the assignments (ie, doing training modules and so on). Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)