User talk:Tnguyen26
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Tnguyen26, 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) 18:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ageing
[edit]Hi, I saw that you picked to edit the article on ageing. I wanted to give you a bit of a head's up on this topic - it's an article that is held under sanctions. What this means is that the article has received quite a bit of attention because of the overall topic of longevity. It also received some attention in the media as well. As such, it is more closely monitored than other articles. Now what this means to you is that anything you add to the article will have to be very neutrally written and have the strongest possible sourcing. Pay very close attention to the reliable source guidelines for medical topics. If anything is removed you will need to discuss the edit on the talk page before re-adding the content.
This doesn't mean that you can't edit and it's not meant to scare you or your peers away from the article - I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the status of the article prior to editing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
[edit]
|
Good luck and stay fueled!!! JasperT888 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC) |
Note about studies
[edit]Hi! I wanted to give you a head's up, as I saw that you used studies as sources. Be very cautious with studies as they're seen as primary sources for any of the research, theories, or conclusions created by its author(s). As such, it needs a secondary source that reviews the study or covers the specific study claim that's used in the article. The training module on health and psychology related topics covers this. However that said, if the studies had literature reviews or did a general review of existing literature (or the lack thereof), you can use that as long as you don't use anything that is specific to this study. In other words, if they did a general review on the literature and stated that there weren't many studies out there, that is OK to use since it isn't a theory unique to the study they conducted. However if they were to review a piece of literature and say that it's proof that their study is needed or helps prove their claims, that shouldn't be used. I hope this makes sense - using studies is kind of a tricky area to navigate on Wikipedia.
Offhand your work looks good as does the overall work from the group, it's just the studies you have to be careful about, especially as this is a medicine related article. You can get more info from the module as well as from the page on the medical sourcing guidelines. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you specify which article this is on shalor?
- Shucks, that would help, wouldn't it? It was on the apgar score article. The specific source that seemed like a study was this one. I had to look up the abstract, which gave off the impression that it was a study. If it's not, then you can disregard what I posted above. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you shalor. Ok I see so you are right that article is indeed a study.However the information that came from it is actually from the the article that I previously cited. I just wanted to put that study in case people were wondering where that came from. Let me know if that is ok!
- That's definitely OK! Looking at it, I see where the secondary source is there - I just wasn't aware that it covered this study. You can go ahead and disregard this - you're doing great! It's actually pretty common for people in general (not just students) to use studies without a secondary source, so you're definitely ahead of the curve! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)