User talk:Aewlarsen/sandbox

Evaluate an article This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Perception Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article as the concept of perception is something we cover within the textbook for this class. As a result, I felt evaluating an article regarding this would be appropriate as we were asked to evaluate an article that had a connection to the course material. In addition, I find perception to be an interesting concept as it dives into the physiological reaction that occurs within the body in response to a stimulus.

Lead Guiding questions:

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation Regarding the Lead, I felt it was very well structured. Within the first sentence, the reader can clearly understand what the topic entails while still being concise. Following the first sentence in the Lead, the article continues to discuss perception in a little more detail and briefly summarizes the components that comprise the bulk of the article, providing the reader with a necessary understanding of the role these factors play in perception. The Lead did not include any information that did not pertain to the rest of the article and went into enough detail to provide the reader with the tools to understand the rest of the article while still bringing together the additional subsections to describe perception as a whole.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Is the content up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content evaluation The content within the article is very relevant to the topic. Although a reader, glancing through may be confused as to why there are subsections including vision, sound, touch, etc., after reading the Lead, the reader would very quickly understand why these subheadings are appropriate. To my knowledge on the subject of perception, I felt the article was up to date. There is some research and understandings that could find a place in this article, however I don't feel the article is containing any large gaping holes in regards to the topic as it is. In regards to content that does not belong or that could be excessive to the article, I did not feel this article fell under either of these categories. The article was well balanced, providing more in depth information on the subject as the article continued while still giving a brief and simple disruption of the topic within the Lead of the article.

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation The article on perception has a very neutral tone. At no point while reading the article did I sense a bias towards one branch of research on the topic. While viewpoints are represented within the article, there is not a dominating or overrepresented viewpoint, nor is one underrepresented to my knowledge. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position regarding perception or the research that has been conducted regarding research.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation In evaluating the article and the sources used to create the article, there is a substantial number of resources on this article and I was unable to find any information in the article that I was unable to find a reliable secondary source to back up statements found within the article. The references are appropriately presented in a way that is easy for the reader to navigate and appropriately represents the original source. While some of the source are older than others, they are still current. All of the links I clicked on within the article and references worked besides one that was already mentioned in the Talk page.

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation The organization of this article was done extremely well. The article is very clear and easy for the reader to understand, regardless of they background on the subject. To demonstrate this, I had my husband, an accounting major, to read the article and summarize the content to me. My husband, having no background in psychology was also able to easily understand the article. In evaluating the article, I did not come across any grammatical or spelling errors. The sections of which this article is broken down into are very natural and appropriate. Within the Lead, the subsections within the article are clearly outlined and given context regarding their importance. After the Lead, the article continues to have a natural flow from each subtopic to the next.

Images and Media Guiding questions:

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation This is an area the article could improve on, however this topic is one that is difficult to have images that pertain to the topic. The images associated with the article are not inaccurate or inappropriate as they include images of many of the philosophers and scientists behind studying perception, however the two images included to demonstrate the idea of perception to the reader could improve. The captions on the images are clear and do aide the reader in further understanding the concept of perception. The images are placed in an aesthetically pleasing way and adhere to Wikipedias's copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page Guiding questions:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Talk page evaluation On the talk page, there are a number of different topics being discussed regarding the article. For one, some believe there is not enough content within the article regarding neuroscience. In reading the article, it is clear that neuroscience does have a place in this subject, but it maybe isn't as big as the individual on the talk page would suggest. In addition, there is some discussion regarding the first sentence, giving a definition of the term perception. The conversation regarding this portion of the article I don't believe would be appropriate to change. This article is a C-class rating and is part of five different WikiProjects. As for how the article discussing perception compares to the way the textbook discusses are rather similar. There weren't any stark differences that I was able to see.

Overall impressions Guiding questions:

What is the article's overall status? What are the article's strengths? How can the article be improved? How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Overall evaluation Overall, the status of the article is reputable. The strengths of the article I would say lie in the Lead. The introduction lays a great foundation for the rest of the article and does an excellent job of being understandable to the reader. The article can improve by perhaps expanding on a few topics such as neuroscience, philosophy, and fixing the one citation that is faulty. As a whole, the article is very complete. While adding a few minor improvements could benefit the article, on the larger part, the article is very well-developed and well put together.

Optional activity Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes Aewlarsen (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Link to feedback:

Choose a topic

Option 1[edit] Article title Cognition Article Evaluation The information in the article seems to all be relevant to the topic, however there is an entire subsection after the Lead dedicated to Metacognition. While the information provided in this section is accurate, it seems somewhat out of place to be taking up such a large portion of the overall article. As discussed on the talk page, it may be better to mention metacognition and provide a wiki link to a separate page entirely to discuss metacognition rather than have an entire subsection devoted to this. In regards to neutrality, this article does seem to have a neutral stance, it doesn't seem to be a very controversial topic and in reading through the talk page, it appears other wikipedians seem to also feel the article is neutral. As we move on the discuss citations and claims, there are a few areas this article can work on. A few of the citation links were faulty, however the majority of the article's citation links do work and are reliable sources. This article could use more citations and this is noted on the current talk page. Sources Zeng, N., Ayyub, M., Sun, H., Wen, X., Xiang, P., & Gao, Z. (2017). Effects of Physical Activity on Motor Skills and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review. BioMed Research International, 2017, 1–13. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1155/2017/2760716

Option 2[edit] Article title Cognitive intervention Article Evaluation While the content in this article is relevant to it, there is not much information provided. Essentially, this wiki page is compiled of a brief definition of cognitive interventions and a subsection of the different types or styles of cognitive interventions. While each of these are wiki links to other pages, the page itself is very limited and doesn't have much content. In regards to neutrality, the article is very neutral, there is no suggestion of persuading the reader to think one particular way, however, again, there is not much content provided on this article. In regards to citations, this is another area in which the article could greatly improve. This wiki page only has one source provided. In order to grow this page, and increase the validity of this wiki page, more citations should be provided. That being said, the one source provided is a reliable one. Within the talk page on this article, there isn't much discussion, however there is one proposal to merge the page with the psychological interventions page. I think this may be a good approach to take as there is so little information currently provided and there isn't much research on this topic to expand the article with. Sources Anderson, N., & Ozakinci, G. (2018). Effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve quality of life in people with long-term conditions: Rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Psychology, 6. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2018-13637-001&site=eds-live

Option 3[edit] Article title Sensory room Article Evaluation This article also contains limited content. The lead does a good job of providing a definition of the term, however there are no further subsections to dive in deeper should the reader wish to know more about the subject. Given the amount of content available in this article, the article doe maintain a neutral stance, however needs more content. In observing the citations, for the amount of content on the page, there is an appropriate number of citations, however citations should increase with the page content. The seven sources provided for the lead are all reliable sources compiled of literature reviews and systemic reviews. In looking at the talk page, it doesn't appear anyone has made suggestions or comments on the talk page. This is a wiki page that could sue some attention. Sources Bailliard, A. L., & Whigham, S. C. (2017). Linking Neuroscience, Function, and Intervention: A Scoping Review of Sensory Processing and Mental Illness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(5), 1–18. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.5014/ajot.2017.024497

Option 4[edit] Article title Auditory exclusion Article Evaluation In reading this psychology stub article, there was little information present on this article as well. There, again, was a lead, but no subsections provided within the article. The talk page did not have any activity. There were three references, however, as we learn in the wiki trainings, it is suggested to have a citation for every line of information provided within the article. While there aren't many lines in the article, there are certainly more than three. This article could use an increase in the amount of content provided and an increase in the number of citations provided to support the information. In regards to neutrality, this article appears to be very neutral, however this is an area that could easily become skewed depending on who the editor is. If the editor was to be someone with a lot of knowledge or experience with the anatomy and neurological responses connected to the process of perceiving audition, the article could become too heavy on that aspect of concept and overshadow the article. Sources Nguyen, T., & Jeyakumar, A. (2019). Genetic susceptibility to aminoglycoside ototoxicity. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 120, 15–19. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.02.002

Option 5[edit] Article title Guided self-change Article Evaluation This article was also very minimal in the provided information for the topic. A definition of this psychotherapy term is given in the Lead of the article, however the only additional information that is provided is a collection of three links to other wiki pages. While all of the content provided is relevant, again, there is a very minimal amount of information provided on the subject. The small amount of information provided does take a neutral stance rather than being selective towards on branch of this type of therapy and no original research is suggested by leaning the reader to the author's own conclusions regarding this branch of psychotherapy. While the citations are limited to three, they are all reliable sources. Given the amount of content within this article, the number of citations is sufficient, however, as the page expands, it is important for the reference list to grow as well. As of right now, there is not much activity on the talk page. There is one post discussing a change that was made to a link within the page, but no additional suggestions or critiques are made or mentioned. Sources Shim, M., Mahaffey, B., Bleidistel, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2017). A scoping review of human-support factors in the context of Internet-based psychological interventions (IPIs) for depression and anxiety disorders. Clinical Psychology Review, 57, 129–140. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewlarsen (talk • contribs) 05:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Citation Exercise

< Tucker, J. A., & Simpson, C. A. (2011). The Recovery Spectrum: From Self-Change to Seeking Treatment. Alcohol Research & Health, 33(4), 371–379. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hxh&AN=60363049&site=eds-live> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewlarsen (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
=== Bibliography for Sensory Room Article ===
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nazila_Akbarfahimi/publication/308878842_Apert_syndrome_A_case_report/links/57f3f4cd08ae886b897dcec3/Apert-syndrome-A-case-report.pdf#page=6 https://www.jeten-online.org/index.php/jeten/article/view/97/71 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27237722 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22357673 https://www.healio.com/psychiatry/journals/jpn/2014-5-52-5/%7B75d5cf6b-e9e3-4228-a51c-0f00d00460ab%7D/use-of-a-sensory-room-on-an-intensive-care-unit https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891422209001401 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewlarsen (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Optimism Bias Peer Review Letter

The article has a strong lead that clearly defines the term giving the reader a strong foundation on which to build should the reader be interested in further investigating the term while still refraining from giving too much information should the reader simply want to understand the term. I was very impressed by the verbiage that was used in the article and the articles ability to stay neutral. A change I would suggest to this article would be to add a cause section as this would help the reader understand how this condition comes to be and help the reader understand the rest of the material discussed in the article. I noticed the lead started to bring in concepts that were discussed in the body of the article and I think this can help a great deal in strengthening the article I am working on!

Lead

Looking at the lead itself, I feel satisfied with the definition given. After reading the lead, the reader is left with a clear fundamental knowledge of the term leading the reader content while still introducing them to more complex ideas associated with the term to be later outlined in the article. In reading the rest of the article, the lead does a moderately good job at reflecting the most important information presented in the rest of the article. While there are a few more in depth concepts that are brought up in the body of the article that are not addressed in the lead, perhaps mentioning the main topics outlined in the rest of the article in the lead would help strengthen it. In regards to whether the lead has too much weight towards on topic or area discussed later in the article, I don't think the lead of this article does this. Rather, I think the lead is vague enough that it gives a balanced basic understanding of the term in order to understand the more in depth information found in the body.

Structure

Regarding the section organization, I think for the majority of the article, the sections are well organized. By starting with discussing the way in which the term is measured helps lay the ground work and understanding for the following sections. One section I do think would be helpful to have earlier in the article rather than later is the "Valence Effect" sections as it is specifically mentioned in the lead. Doing so would provide the reader with a better ability to connect this term with the term the article was written for.

Balance

In looking at the articles balance, the sections are fairly well balanced. There isn't a dominating section in the body of the article and none of the sections seem to be unnecessary or extremely lengthy. Each sections plays a contributing role in the reader further understanding the original term. There is a good sense of balance as the article brings to light all of the concepts mentioned in the supporting literature for the article. While no viewpoints are left out, it would be helpful for there to be a section regarding the cause of the condition. I would suggest a sections such as this be towards the beginning of the body of the article to help engage the reader in the rest of the article while enabling them to better understand and digest the following information in the body of the article. I did not notice any attempt to draw the reader to a conclusion or make an effort to persuade the reader to think one way versus another. Rather, the article was very factual and neutral.

Neutral

This article did an excellent job at staying neutral. At no point while reading the article did I think/feel as though the author had a certain perspective in which the were writing the article to support. No absolute terms were used, increasing the article's neutral stance. There was no usage of claims made by unnamed groups or individuals. The article brings up both the positive and the negative way of thinking associated with this term and equally discusses each while stating that the negative thought process has been found to be more common in individuals. Although this statement was made, there was sufficient evidence to support the claim.

Reliable Sources

The sources used on this article are sufficient, supportive, and scholarly increasing their reliability. The references are comprised of textbooks and journal articles and refrain from pulling from specific studies and are rather largely peer reviewed literature reviews, increasing the reliability and decreasing the likelihood of a bias within the article. There are a large number of references and the various different references are used within the article. There isn't one source that is overly used to support claims made in the article. The article did a good job of making citations within the article to support the statements made. There were a few places in the lead that could use more supporting references as there aren't many in the lead, however within the body of the article there are a lot of supporting articles.

Serial-position Effect Article Peer Review Letter

The body of the article is very well comprised. The section on the primacy effect accurately describes the term and what role it plays in the serial-position effect. In addition, the recency effect section in the body of the article follows a same relevance and support to the reader in understanding the initial term for which the article was written. I was also impressed by the last section of the body of the article addressing other related effects. This was an interesting and helpful section as it brought to light other effects that are similar to the serial-position effect and helped the reader to further understand this term. I would suggest making a few changes to the lead, perhaps removing the two paragraphs that focus largely on the primacy effect. In addition, I would suggest adding a section on the originally experimenter's research and the history behind who coined the term and how the term came to be used. Perhaps this would be good to include in the lead. Something I learned from this article is the importance of organization and what an influential role that plays in enabling the reader to better understand the term for which the article was written. I plan on incorporating such an organizational structure in the article I will be contributing too!

Lead

The lead for this article is strong but could use a few changes. After reading the lead, I am satisfied with my understanding of the topic, as it is easy to understand the topic after reading the first paragraph, however there is a heavy focus on the primacy effect in the lead rather than focusing on the term on which the article is for. The lead seems to lean heavily towards focusing on the primacy effect as there are essentially two paragraphs in the lead that are focused on the primacy effect. This places more weight on this term and aspect of the serial-position effect while leaving out a focus on the words at the end of a list and an individuals ability to remember those. This is slightly redundant and should maybe be placed in the the primacy effect section in the body.

Structure

As for the structure of the article, I feel it is very well organized. By breaking down the primacy and recency effect into subsections within the article, the reader is enabled to further understand the term for which the article was written. As these are the most prominent aspects of the serial-position effect, it makes sense to have them first in the article and placing other related effects as the final section.

Balance

In regards to the body alone, not including the lead, the article has great balance. There isn't a heavy weight on one aspect of the original term of which the article was written and nothing seems to be off-topic in regards to the term for which the article was written. As this term has somewhat limited research that has been conducted in regards to it, there is not a lack of any viewpoint. However, a section further describing the original experiment conducted by Ebbinghaus would strengthen the article as the reader would have an increased understanding in how he found his results. The article does not draw any conclusions for the reader or make any attempt to convince or persuade the reader to think in a particular way.

Neutral

After reading the article, I didn't feel I could sense a certain perspective the author had in regards to the article. While the lead was heavily focused on the primacy effect, the body of the article was not dominant in this area and had a good, neutral stance. No absolute terms or phrases were used within the article nor were any suggesting or persuading phrases used. All of the statements and claims in the article were supported by reliable sources and there were no unattributed claims or statements.

Reliable Sources

The sources for this article were reliable and relevant. The supporting citations and references were comprised from scholarly articles avoiding blogs or self-published authors. There are a large number of sources and no one source is excessively used to support multiple claims throughout the article. The sources come from a variety of different authors and are not dominant on one specific point of view.

Cognitive Development Article Peer Review Letter This article has a very strong lead that leaves the reader satisfied and understanding the term. In addition, the lead does an excellent job of setting up a nice introduction to the body of the article and the concepts to be discussed there and what role they place in the original term for which the article was written. I was very impressed by the lead of the article as it did a great job of balancing the introduction of important information that would be discussed in more depth late in the article. A few things that could be done to strengthen the article would be to add a few more sections. Two sections I think would help strengthen this article would be a zone of proximal development section and a socioculteral theory section. By adding these two sections, readers would be given a more holistic view and concept of the term and important influential factors in regards to the term. I noticed the strength of the lead in this article and plan to utilize the structure and organization used in the lead in the article I will be contributing to Wikipedia.

Lead

This article has a very strong lead. The article is a dense one with a lot of sub information that could be included in the subsections of the article. The lead does an excellent job of introducing concepts or aspects of the term that will be brought up in more depth in the body of the article. After reading the lead, I was satisfied with the knowledge of the subject I had obtained and felt I had a solid concept or grasp of the topic. After reading the rest of the article, the lead does an excellent job of bringing to light the most important information and highlighting it in the lead while not going too ind depth into the concept. The lead does not give more weight to any one specific aspect or sub concept of the body of the article and nothing seems to be missing from the lead nor does any aspect of the lead seem redundant.

Structure

In regards to structure, the article is very well organized. By creating sections in the body of the article to address the different theories associated with the term and then breaking those theories down into developmental ages, the article is easy to digest.

Balance

The sections of the article are appropriate in length to the the importance each sections plays in understanding the term for which the article was written. All of the sections in the article seem to be necessary and none of them seem to be off-topic however there could easily be added sections to the article such as inclusion of information regarding the zone of proximal development or a sociocultural theory section. This article does not draw conclusions for the reader or make suggestions to steer the reader's thought process or opinions.

Neutral

The article does a good job of maintaining a neutral stance. After reading the article, I didn't feel as though I knew the perspective from which the author was writing or the stance they took in regards to the subject. The article was objective and refrained from using absolute or suggestive statements. The statements made in the article were supported by reliable and cited sources. There were no claims made that were on behalf of unnamed groups or individuals.

Reliable Sources

Reliable sources were used for this article. While there were a few articles cited that I noticed weren't entirely relevant to the article, the citations within the article were referenced in the reference section of the article and came from reliable sources such as textbook and journal articles. There were no sources from self-published authors or blogs. No one references was used to support multiple claims made within the article. No one source was excessively used within the article and there was a large number of reliable sources cited throughout the article. No unsourced statements were made within the article. In addition, there was not an excessive number of references to support one mindset or opinion in regards to the article. The references were objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewlarsen (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review Response

Thank you Kbarlow18 and Marypolatis for the feedback! We’re glad you found the article to provide a quick and brief knowledge in regards to Sensory Rooms. It’s helpful to know our article doesn’t contain unnecessary or irrelevant content. We truly do appreciate you taking the time to evaluate our article and value the suggestions you made. We plan to incorporate your suggestions as we continue to further edit and strengthen the Sensory Room article.

In reading over your feedback, Kbarlow18 stated, “This article is lacking a lot of information to be helpful to those who are wanting to learn a lot about sensory rooms. There is a lot of room to improve and add paragraphs to expound on the information that is already there.” We know the article itself doesn’t have a lot of information on it, and we are planning on adding a new section about the history of Sensory rooms, and also expanding upon the information that is already on the article. We appreciate your feedback and will be taking it into account. By providing a History section, readers will be able to better understand the foundation from which Sensory Rooms were built, enabling us to go further into depth in the other areas. We have a collection of sources compiled together on the topic of Sensory Rooms to strengthen and expand our already existing sections. In addition to Kbarlow18’s comments, Marypolatis suggested, “Even though the article is pretty simple I think you should expound on the history behind it and where it all stems from. It would show more in depth of what Sensory room is.” We agree that this article needs more information about the history of sensory rooms. We are planning to create a subsection to specifically address the history of sensory rooms. In addition we plan to expound on the already existing subsections to add more depth to the article. We appreciate your feedback and we will definitely use it to improve our article!

In addition to the revisions that we plan to incorporate mentioned above, we plan to increase the number of references currently on the article. By increasing the number of references on the article’s page, we can increase the number of in text citations made throughout the course of the article. This will strengthen the validity of the article while adding to the article’s depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewlarsen (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)