User talk:Tranhtruong
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Tranhtruong, 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)
A cheeseburger for you!
[edit]
|
Keep up the good work!!! JasperT888 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC) |
GOAT
[edit].jpg)
Keep up that GOAT work
JasperT888 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Marasmus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ―Susmuffin Talk 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Added header to peer review
[edit]I added a header to one of your peer reviews (see addition with 2 = signs before and after) Please do that in future peer reviews! Health policy (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Marasmus
[edit]Hi! I wanted to give you a head's up, as I saw that you used studies as sources. So far the work on the article looks great, it's just studies you have to watch out for.
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. The module is good for this, but you can also review the page on the medical sourcing guidelines as well.
There looks to only have been one source, otherwise everything else was good source-wise. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)