User talk:PaigeCarmichael1

Welcome!

Hi, PaigeCarmichael1. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, PaigeCarmichael1, 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) 20:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft notes

Hi, I have some notes on your draft:

• When writing, make sure that you stick to the more formal style that Wikipedia uses.

• I saw that you highlight studies - in order to use studies you need to have independent and reliable sources that discuss the study, specifically the claims from the study that you're summarizing in the article. The thing with studies as far as Wikipedia goes is that they're primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by its creators. The publisher doesn't actually do any in-depth verification of or any commentary on the study, as they only look to make sure that there are no obvious errors that would invalidate the study. This type of thing is really only done by people who review the study in order to perform a literature review or put it into context with other things, which is why there would need to be an accompanying secondary source. They would give the needed verification and context - the latter of which is very important since studies tend to be very limited when it comes to who they include in the study, as it's usually impossible to include everyone that would fit into the chosen demographic because of time, money, and labor constraints. Even then, the researchers may only study a very specific aspect or theory, which would be too narrow to apply on a very wide scale.

Now that said, this likely wouldn't be considered a study per se, as they didn't hold a study or go and gather the information that made up the ethnographies that they reviewed. I would consider this to be more of a review unless the full paper mentions that they surveyed participants in a given group, at which point it would be considered a study.

• Make sure that all of your content is backed up with reliable sources. I don't know if the main article had the content with sourcing or not, but if there isn't sourcing it would be good to try to find some, since you're looking into this general area. Providing sourcing for previously unsourced content is definitely a great way to contribute to Wikipedia.

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)