User talk:Vivianle17
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Vivianle17, 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) 18:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Euthanasia
[edit]Hi! I saw that you chose to edit the article on euthanasia. Since this is a controversial topic area, be very cautious when editing. Make sure that your editing is as neutral and factual as possible and that you're using the strongest possible sources. I would also post a note on the article's talk page to give people a head's up on what you plan on adding or editing. If anything is removed, make sure to discuss it on the article's talk page before re-adding anything.
This isn't meant to scare you away or anything like that - I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that this tends to be a controversial topic area even on here from time to time. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting goals
[edit]Adding popular literature to the Euthanasia page is a nice touch. Health policy (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Studies as sources
[edit]Hi! I saw that you used a study in the amniocentesis article. This poses a bit of an issue since it wasn't accompanied by a secondary source that backs up the claim.
The issue with studies is that they're primary sources for the data compiled by its creators, who are also typically the ones who conducted the research. The publisher can't serve as a verification of the study, as they only review to ensure that there are no obvious errors that would invalidate the study and determine if the study is something that should be published. They don't provide any commentary, which a secondary source would. Studies are also fairly limited out of necessity, as there's almost always not possible to survey every person that could fall into the study area. As such, the findings are seen as only really true for those persons who participated. The results could differ if they were to survey people from a different area, with a different ailment than cancer, or from different backgrounds or income levels. The secondary source will help provide that context. You could also have someone ask why one study was chosen over another that may give different results or one that isn't in English. That said, it is generally OK to use the literature reviews in a study as long as you're careful to avoid the parts where the author uses them to discuss their study.
Essentially what you need to do here is to add secondary sources to the article. This is all especially important when it comes to discussing health related data and claims. The policy page on the guidelines for sourcing medical articles goes over this in a bit more depth.
I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you! Vivianle17 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Tea and toast treatment
[edit]Hi, I saw your edits on the Tea and Toast article and wanted to suggest revising the text to be more accessible, ideally closer to a high school reading level. Thanks.Health policy (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)