User talk:Clphan
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Clphan, 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)
Note[edit]
Hi! I saw that you used two studies as a source. 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Shalor! Thank you for the feedback! I realize my mistake with using the primary source (added one sentence in the "Medical Aspects" section), which I will go ahead and delete/change. I was having trouble figuring out which other source was the problem (possibly the sentence in "Motivations, perceptions, and challenges" that talks about why implementation will be difficult; source was the WHO). I will go ahead and delete this as I see that it could be drawing up conclusions. I am not sure if that article was a viable source (it's not really a study, but it just talks about other studies). All of my other edits (addition to "Death doulas" and other info in "Motivations, perceptions, and challenges) are based on systematic reviews or meta-analyses. However, the way I worded my edits may appear that it is based on 1 primary source because I typed "A 2018 study...." or "A 2019 study..." when they are both reviews. Could you please clarify which 2 sources you are referring to? Thank you! Clphan (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)