User talk:Van2169847
| This user is a student editor in Paradise_Valley_Community_College/IFS201-37547_(Fall) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Van2169847, 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) 15:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Parental control
[edit]Hi! I saw that you moved your sandbox live - however I must note that there is already an article at parental controls. There are two other issues, however.
The first is that there is content in the article that comes across as an opinion or research, but isn't attributed to a specific person or organization. This is fixable, as you just need to attribute it along the lines of "According to so-and-so...".
The second is that this is sourced using a study. The issue with studies is that they're primary sources when it comes to any of the claims or research conducted by its author(s), so in order for the study to be usable you'd have to show where there's independent, secondary coverage of the source. One reason for this is that the journal publishing the content doesn't actually do any sort of in-depth verification of the study or provide any context - they only look to make sure that there are no glaring errors or inconsistencies that would invalidate the study completely. This is important, as a journal can do their basic checks but still end up publishing a study that has issues or errors, which is actually relatively common - many studies may end up being updated or have a follow-up published to correct this. It doesn't completely invalidate the study, but a secondary source can help show that the research is correct or at least as correct as can be. The other reason is that the secondary source will show how the study is notable - in other words, it helps justify why this study should be highlighted/used above other, similar studies - especially if they may contradict the study being highlighted or used as a source.
Since this does brush against the world of science, psychology, and health, I would like for you to review this training, thanks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello I was thinking of adding another supported source of the same tone but perhaps in the criticism section of the parental control section. Van2169847 (talk) 05:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I've taken the time to read the study you cited and I'm under the impression that it doesn't apply to the subject matter of this article. The study discusses parental self-control and its effects on the self-control of their children. This article, however, is about parents' control and restriction of content on children, which is not what self-control refers to. I've deleted the section from the article, but if you feel differently, feel free to let me know your reasoning. Aardila (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)