User talk:Caranlee
| This user is a student editor in George_Washington_University/UW1020_M66_(Spring) . |
|
Hi Caranlee! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 14:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Caranlee, 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) 18:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Hi! I have some notes for you:
- I'm really intrigued by how you approached the page! Covering haunted/possessed dolls in other countries is a very good idea. Make sure that you mention specific time periods, however. The reason for this is that there are still areas that believe in fetishism, so this isn't automatically an outdated practice. Unless there are going to be other things in the section, it may be better to change this to a "by country" section.
- Be very careful with sourcing. Documentaries aren't always usable as sources, as some directors and writers greatly sensationalize their work to the point where the films aren't seen as reliable sources. Whether it's reliable depends greatly on how it's received by academic and scholarly authorities in the subject area. Documentaries used to be seen as more reliable, but I think that Michael Moore served as kind of a turning point for that. You also want to avoid self-published and blog type sources, as these are typically not seen as reliable. This unfortunately greatly limits what sources can be used for topics like this, as sources like this one don't really have any sort of true editorial or verification process.
- Surprisingly, dictionary.com is kind of a dubious source since they're run by Ask.com, which is typically not seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia due to their verification and editorial oversight. You can replace this with something like Merriam-Webster, however.
- The section on psychology feels too much like original research. Keep in mind that we can only summarize what is explicitly stated in the source material, so if the sourcing in this section largely doesn't discuss haunted dolls in specific, then it shouldn't be in the article. Also, since you're writing on psychology in relation to the topic, I'd like you to review this training module.
- Some of the sources are 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 child in Florida may respond differently than one in California or Saudi Arabia. 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.
I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)