User:Kseruntine/sandbox

Article Evaluation

As far as everything in the article being relevant, I could not tell what was article and what was just comments from other people. The information from peoples comments and stuff seemed to be a little out of date. A lot of dates I saw were from 2007-2009. What could be improved is clarifying what is the actual article. From what I could tell, most of the article was neutral. "Animal Intelligence" seemed to have a lot of people commenting and editing. "Spatial Cognition" also had a lot of information. I checked the link for "Chimp has an ear for talk" and it seemed like a reliable source. The facts seemed checked and like they came from reliable sources. The articles are part of Wikiprojects. The kinds of conversations going on are giving facts and comments about the topics. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_cognition#New_Information>

Article Selection

1. Mental illness portrayed in media- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness_portrayed_in_media

   - The section we could add would be "Mental Health Portrayed in social media"
   -I also think we would be able to add to the section- News. 
   - Mental Health is a really hot topic right now and movies and TV don't always accurately display it. This can growth when we learn about Social Networks in Society. 

Potential Sources

1. Link: https://link-springer-com.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00127-018-1571-5.pdf This source goes in depth about the stigmatization of mental health through social media platforms.

Citation: Robinson, Patrick, et al. “Measuring Attitudes towards Mental Health Using Social Media: Investigating Stigma and Trivialisation.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Aug. 2018. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s00127-018-1571-5.

2.Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

This source talks about how social media can affect sleep patterns, changes in mood, other negative effects on mental illness.

Citation: Stefanone, M.A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). "Contingencies of Self-Worth and Social-Networking-Site Behavior" (PDF). Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. Retrieved 2018-10-18.

3. Link: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/children-teens-media-and-body-image# This source talks about pressure of body image social media puts on children, teens, and young adults.

Citation: "Children, Teens, Media, and Body Image | Common Sense Media". Retrieved 2017-12-03.

Article Draft:

Studies have shown that social media can have an impact on how mental illness is portrayed and also can be linked to its development, according to Patrick Robinson. Social media has been known to create stigmas towards mental health that are not being made towards physical health. He conducts a study on Twitter and discovers that things such as OCD, anxiety, or depression are used in a way that takes away the seriousness from the mental illness. One example of how social media can have a negative affect on mental health is how people use Instagram and other forms of media to compare themselves to other peoples posts. "Facebook depression" leads to problems such as reclusiveness which can negatively damage ones health by creating feelings of loneliness and low self-esteem among young people" . Traditional mainstream media portrays unrealistic, idealized, and sexualized body types for women and also men. Ladies having a heavier body type are less likely to be portrayed in a romantic situation. This depiction can lead to the body shaming of females who do not have the 'ideal' body type.

Peer Review

I really enjoyed reading the article and believe it is an incredible addition to Wikipedia and the topic is very socially relevant and important to talk about. I like the sources you’ve found and think that your article well reflects the information from the sources but some are a bit more bias so I would make a note of that in the Wiki article if possible. The introduction the information is easy to understand and succinct. I think the third sentence could be revised to more reflect the wiki voice and a more neutral tone. Maybe something like “the casual use of certain descriptors can impact the seriousness of obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, or depression ”. When talking about the example of social media’s negative impact on mental health I think there could be a more neutral example given. Maybe something not so specific would give the same effect but not seem so persuasive. I think it would have the same effect by saying that people compare themselves to others on social media. It would be more impactul if you could describe “tradition mainstream media” when talking about what they portray and maybe having a source that shows they actually portray these things. I also think it could be useful to find a source to back up the second to last sentence. Overall, it was great and I really enjoyed reading it as well as your sources. The main thing to work on is the Wiki voice. Great job! - Macy Allen

The introduction to the topics is very strong and well worded. The only thing in the overall scheme of things is that there are specific things from the article that I would be careful and may look at revising them to be more generic. The article has a majority of neutral but some of the information leans more into the negative effects of the article. The viewpoint though I think is a little overrepresented for the simple fact that it has a higher lean to the negative effects than any positive effects. Good job at referencing the links and checking for bad connections. There is a strong list of reference to defend the information that is being presented. The fact is supported by a reliable reference that has good reference points but you need to watch the wording in the document as it makes the piece look one sided. You did are great job in making sure that the information was relevant and update for the topic at hand. Overall the article was a well structure piece of information. There just needs a little work on adjusting it to a Wiki voice mindset. -Corey Alleman

Response to Peer Review:

Overall, our peer review was positive. Our information was deemed relevant, and our data strong. The only thing that was presented as an issue was our use of the Wiki voice. To fix this, altering the viewpoint and making it less negative towards the representation of Mental Illness in Social Media and steering it more in the direction of being informative from a neutral standpoint on the subject. Recording the information taken in the article presented in the introduction will help to steer it in the right direction. The feedback was helpful and informative. Ecalam1 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)ecalam1

I was pleased to read the peer review and see that overall that it was a good review. It was pointed out that there is a slight bias toward the negative side effects which I now realize as I go back and re-read what we had wrote. I am going to go back though the article and see what I can do to either show with sides of argument or make it more bias and see if I can find better quotations to put into our article. Or maybe we can change our topic to fit the article and make it "Negative Side Effects on Mental Health by Social media." I am happy that the reviewers seemed to like the idea of our article and their critiques were very helpful. ~~~~Kristina Seruntine