JRMcCumber1
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Alabama/Relational_Communication_-_COM_563_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
editHello, JRMcCumber1, 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) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Notes
editHi! I have some notes for your draft!
- Firstly, make sure that your draft is not redundant to the existing article on casual sex. I know that the two aren't exactly the same, but they do overlap quite a bit as far as the subject matter goes. You may want to see if the content can be summarized and merged into the casual sex article.
- When using studies, make sure that you have independent, secondary sources to back up the claims and observations in the study. The reason for this is that studies are seen as primary sources for these things, as the journal/outlet putting out the work doesn't actually verify that the material is correct or provide any sort of reflection or commentary on the work. They check to make sure that there aren't any obvious holes, errors, or inconsistencies that could invalidate the research outright. This is where the secondary sources that review the material come into play. Not only do they help resolve concerns about the claims and research, but they also help to show where the study is notable enough to be used as a source and highlighted in the article.
- Avoid including opinions, persuasive writing, or original research, which is any claims, theories, or observations that you create based on sourcing that doesn't explicitly make these claims. Examples of this would be the phrase 'highly difficult', as this is something that is fairly subjective to the reader. If you're summarizing a source, always attribute this along the lines of "The FWB relationship has been described by So-and-So as highly difficult to clearly define as a theory". If the source doesn't explicitly state this, unfortunately we can't include it - we can only summarize what's already been stated as opposed to creating new research on our own.
I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Shalor,
Thank you so much for your notes, I will definitely take these in to account. Dr. Pederson and I were actually talking about the best place to add this information. I will do what you have suggested and summarize it to be added to the Casual-sex page. I will not do it until after Dr. P has graded the present information.