User talk:JaquelineW
| This user is a student editor in Howard_University/Sociology_of_Food_and_Agriculture_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, JaquelineW, 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) 15:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Raw veganism
[edit]Hi! I saw that you were editing this article and focusing on it in a way that goes into the sphere of health and psychology. Your class doesn't have the training on editing this area, so I wanted to give you a general overview of this and also provide a link to the training itself here. If you're interested in continuing to edit in this area, please take this training. That said, here's a general overview of editing in this subject area - even if the material only brushes against this topic. Some of this is also covered at WP:MEDRS, which I'll be quoting here.
The first thing to know is that Wikipedia guidelines are a bit more specific and strict when it comes to medical topics, which means that editors have to be pay a little extra attention to both sourcing and how things are written. There are generally three types of sources out there: (from MEDRS)
In the biomedical literature:
- A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.
- A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
- A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources.
The sources you want to use in articles will be either secondary or tertiary sources. The reason for this is while the studies are informative, they're also written by the people who participated in the events documented in the study. They are, as MEDRS puts it, exploratory and may not always be reliable, as studies can often contradict one another. Another issue with studies is that by their very nature they're limited in the people/areas they survey. This means that the results are only applicable to those specific people and aren't representative of every person in that demographic. For example, an education research participant group in San Francisco and another in Dallas would produce results that differ depending on the culture of the region. Even if taken from the same city, the results could differ on factors such as sexuality, race, ethnicity, and income.
The good thing about secondary and tertiary sources is that they tend to often compare the results to other, similar studies in a way that both verifies the research (even if they're disagreeing with it) and gives a good overview.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- On a side note, I also added a source that mentions the study as well as add the name of the main researcher and link to his article (Luigi Fontana (medical researcher)). On a side note, if you're interested you may want to look into improving his article, as it needs a little work. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Convenience food
[edit]Hello. On my talk page, you said: "I have been making edits to the Convenience Food article page in my sandbox for some time now. When I transitioned my information to the live article, I see that you deleted the content I added. I understand that I should add more references to my information. However, I would also like a clearer understanding of your decision to take down the content."
- Thanks for your attempts to improve the article, but I feel you are slightly off topic and perhaps soapboxing without sources that directly connect consumption of convenience foods to illnesses and social inequalities. Convenience foods (such as fortified products) may be manufactured with high nutrient density, and therefore may be beneficial and not always associated with poverty or food insecurity, but rather may be desirable for an otherwise low-nutrient diet. It is difficult to find good sources (please review WP:MEDRS for topics related to human health, such as food and nutrition), and particularly unlikely where actual high-quality clinical research has been done on convenience foods. My recommendation is that you try to find sources as news reports or health organization position statements where this has been addressed. However, the article's references, reading, and external links are generally weak because this topic - as with all food and health concerns - is difficult to study with sufficient scientific rigor to discuss for the encyclopedia. Following you here if you wish to respond. --Zefr (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! My notes are as follows:
- You use a lot of studies for this, which is problematic for the reason stated above. These must have a secondary source that verifies and puts it into context if the studies are to be used. It also shows where these studies are notable enough to be highlighted, especially over other studies which may have similar findings or contradict them entirely.
- With convenience foods, I do see a marked improvement over the last version but this still comes across a little too much like you're arguing a point. Some things I can suggest for improvement would be to avoid "if... then..." or "if... therefore" statements and to be aware of other wording that could be seen as persuasive or an opinion. The word "thus" is one word that comes across as a persuasive term since it is typically used by a single person to make an argument based on sourcing, even if the sourcing doesn't explicitly state the claim. The use of studies can also exacerbate this to a certain point, since without the secondary sourcing the choice of studies could be seen as cherrypicking studies that back up a specific argument. This may not have been your intent, but this is why it's so important to be cautious with sourcing.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)