User talk:Nina Thompson

This user is a student editor in Emory_University/Gender,_Race,_Inequality_-_Evidence_(Sprnig_2018) .

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nina Thompson, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:[edit]

Hi Nina! Here are my notes:

Always source the major points and claims. Even if the source is placed later in the paragraph, sentences about racial discrepancies and when racial inequality began should have a source after them. This is mostly because these are things that people may contest or question, even if it seems really obvious that it's correct.

Quotes should always have a source after them to show where the quote was pulled from.

With studies, always make sure that they're covered in a secondary source. The reason for this is that the study is a primary source for any claims or data created by the researchers. The publishing journal doesn't actually verify the study's findings - they more provide assistance with flow and writing, as well as make sure that there are no glaringly obvious falsehoods or issues. In other words, they don't actually verify enough to really prove the findings true. You have a great example of a secondary source here, as they cover the study - anything like this is good. I found some Google Scholar hits for this as far as citations go ([1]) for the other study you use as a source.

Other than that, this looks good so far! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]