User talk:Tcobbs

Welcome!
Hello, Tcobbs, 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) 14:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
"Stereotypes of African Americans"

- African Americans weren't represented as fully realized humans in American Art (1710-1940) - Blackface was used by performers who wanted to exaggerate their skin color and their lips. - Black women were given the stereotype of "Jezebel" which labeled them sexually promiscuous and immoral. - African Americans were under another stereotype, that of savage. Them being a savage made them seem like they were childlike and they were cannibals who didn't live like normal people. - Modern stereotypes include crack victims and drug dealers, "welfare queens", angry black woman, etc. - This entire article is dedicated to the historical and present time stereotypes that African Americans face. Some are only geared towards men and some for women, but all of them place African Americans inferior to everyone around them.

Studies as sources
Hi, I had some notes about your additions to the page on social media in education, specifically about the fact that the section focused on a single study:


 * This dealt with health and psychology and as such, it needs to be sourced with the strongest possible sources per the medical sourcing guidelines. For this, you need to have things like literature reviews in academic and scholarly sources or tertiary sources like textbooks and the like that discuss the topic. Popular press sources should be avoided unless you're discussing something like history. This training goes over this in more detail, but the general gist is that popular press sources are more likely to gloss over details, over generalize or sensationalize findings, or draw conclusions that aren't really supported in the study, as popular press sourcing tends to be more focused on driving up readership than accuracy


 * The section focused on a single study. This is an issue because most studies are not notable enough to really justify their own section in an article. You need to have a lot of independent and reliable sources to show where a single study is notable, which tends to be difficult to find because most studies aren't going to have that type of coverage. :However there are other issues with studies that need to be taken into consideration. One of the most major is that studies are extremely limited in their scope, as the researchers are unable to survey every person out there. There's just not enough time, funding, and people to do this. As such, a study will only review a relatively or extremely small group of participants, making the study findings only accurate for those people who participated. For example, someone from a wealthy background may respond differently than someone who is poor. A person who lives in Florida may respond differently than someone in Washington, as could a person from a Hispanic or Latino background than someone who is Caucasian- and this is only taking the United States into consideration. A student in the United States and one in Japan or Russia may report very different findings. What this means is that the findings of a single study should not be applied to all students throughout the globe. The sources that are needed to justify highlighting the study in so much depth are also needed because they will typically give the findings larger context and put them into a wider perspective. This last part is very important since the article needs is meant to take a global perspective on the topic.


 * Another thing was that one of the sources was primary. This poses an issue with the last note, as independent secondary sources are needed. It's not that you absolutely can't use primary sources, just that you should have a lot of those secondary sources.

I've removed this for the time being. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)