Trterp
| This user is a student editor in San_Diego_State_University/ED690_Methods_of_Inquiry_(Summer_2019) . |
Welcome!
editHello, Trterp, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
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)
Notes
editHi, I have some notes:
- I saw that you had large amounts of content that didn't have sourcing. As such, this makes the section you added look like a personal essay and original research, as it looks like you're making your own conclusions as opposed to summarizing what is stated in the source material.
- You also have statements that are outright reflections on the sources, which were studies (more on that in the next bullet point). There are point of view statements like "unfortunately", which are subjective to the reader. While I don't think that people would necessarily disagree, the fact is that it's still a subjective statement.
- The following sentence is a reflection and suggestion as to what the study could have done differently, which is not something that should be on Wikipedia:
- As multiracial individuals are consistently made aware of their vague position within the current cultural narratives involving race, comfort around the topic could have been built up, leading to more readiness to discuss diversity and race topics.
- Essentially we can only summarize source material - we cannot comment upon the source or draw our own conclusions. It has to be in the source to be in the article.
- The sourcing you did have looked to be entirely studies. 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.
Essentially what needs to be done here is to produce secondary sources that back up what is stated in the source material and work to make sure that the work doesn't read like an essay. I've removed the content for the time being, as it just read like too much of an essay. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)