User talk:Nkchicago

Welcome!
Hello, Nkchicago, 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) 15:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sibling abuse
Hi! I just wanted to say good job so far on the article! My only notes would be to be careful of relying too much on one source, as that doesn't really show a good depth of coverage - even though the source itself is a good one. The other is to be careful when citing findings from studies, as almost all studies cover only a portion of the group they hope to study. By this I mean that the study is limited to the amount of people who respond, the amount of valid responses, and sometimes even a particular background and/or geographical area. Basically, a study is typically not representative of an entire group of people because there could be factors in play that could change the type of responses. For example, a study on sibling abuse that only seeks out participants online would likely not get responses from people who lack the access and education to fill out such a study, which could in turn influences the data accumulated. The same goes for geographical areas - people who live in San Francisco may have a different response to questions than people in New York City.

Other than that, this looks good so far! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I'm not sure why your edits didn't show up properly - I was confusing it with a fellow student's. My notes will change slightly, but the main thing about relying heavily on or reporting predominantly from one source is still a prevalent issue. While it does look like Caspi drew from other sources for his book, relying heavily on this specific book puts a lot of undue weight on his work. Rather than listing it and prefacing it with a sentence that says that the material comes from one specific book or source, it's generally better to write it out in paragraph format - especially if you are still using other sources for the section. So for example, you could re-write the risk factors section for individuals thusly:
 * Common risk factors for offenders tend to include a lack of empathy for their victim(s), aggressive temperament, or lower or higher self-esteem than their peers. Other risk factors identified by researchers are unmet personal needs for physical contact in emotion-deprived environments. Some offenders are also reported to have been caretakers for their younger brothers and sisters, with some inflicting abuse out of boredom.
 * Siblings who experience psychological distress such as anger, depression, and anxiety from violence victimization by siblings are often at risk of experiencing sibling abuse and these factors are also closely linked to re-victimization.
 * This is a little easier to read than a list. Lists tend to be discouraged on Wikipedia because it can be harder to read and can also make it harder to show context, among other reasons. This format also takes the emphasis on the main source you pulled the lists from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these detailed and thoughtful comments! I will make sure they are reflected in my future edits. Nkchicago (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)