User:CUStudentFJ/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1 (Editing Environmental affects Section)

 * Screen time
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead Section & Content - The lead section wasn't very wordy with a lot of high level jargon. Direct definitions and pinpointing to where the article would start and finish. The article didn't start by providing clear bias or opinion on the topic. Tone and Balance & Sources and References - The tone was very direct yet emotionless which invites the reader to have their own personal connection other than a suggested one. The transition into each sentence is smooth from topic to detail without excessive repetition. Over 57 sources and references that range from American to International journals to support claims. Links are active and current. Organization and Writing Quality & Images and Media - The writing quality is pretty standard and not much tangent from the outline provided. The writer(s) are explain their points in a simplistic form to allowing readers of all skillsets to understand the details being provided. There weren't an excessive amount pictures but they did come from Wiki's library of images with authorization for use to a public domain. They didn't quite elaborate the extent of the quantities of people that may be similar but did enable the reader to compare to personal moments where this was witnessed.
 * Talk page discussions & Overall impression - This article was part of a Wiki project with no red flags to its content nor poor communication on the talk page. A suggestion of merger of a another article into this article came into discussion and the merger was approved by another editor/writer. The article isn't underdeveloped, however, there is plenty of additional information to expound on certain topics. For example there are studies of screen time to time with the environment. This article doesn't carry any preconceived notions about the topic and allows for addt'l editors to provide credible information.
 * Talk page discussions & Overall impression - This article was part of a Wiki project with no red flags to its content nor poor communication on the talk page. A suggestion of merger of a another article into this article came into discussion and the merger was approved by another editor/writer. The article isn't underdeveloped, however, there is plenty of additional information to expound on certain topics. For example there are studies of screen time to time with the environment. This article doesn't carry any preconceived notions about the topic and allows for addt'l editors to provide credible information.

Option 2 (Adding to Stigmas & Treatment Section)

 * Treatment of mental disorders
 * Article Evaluation
 * The writer(s) allow for ample input from potential editors but remains unbias in providing key information in comparison to the overarching topic.
 * In my opinion, there's no severe red flags that the writer is attempting to sway the reader in any one direction but provide general facts in support of the article's topic.
 * All claims have a citation except for the addition I'd like to make with regard to cost for Treatment of mental disorders. Includes a total of 66 references and sources.
 * All citations are reliable but can be pulling from articles that were originally published in as early as 2001
 * The article does not provide statistics based on underrepresented nationalities and only speaks to America and the UK. It does lightly speak to how stereotypes are generated surrounding obtaining services for the overarching topic.
 * The original writer is open to edits and did utilize a suggestion for an outline provided by another reader
 * The original writer is open to edits and did utilize a suggestion for an outline provided by another reader


 * Sources
 * https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st434/stat434.shtml
 * https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st434/stat434.shtml

Option 3 (Adding to Risk factors)

 * Video game addiction
 * Article Evaluation
 * There are more than 140 references and sources provided.
 * It seems there were several revisions made to improve the articles neutrality based on the topics listed on the talk page. However, the current status of the article doesn't not reflect an imposition of the writer's opinion and simply providing material to support the overarching topic.
 * All claims are linked with a citation and an editor or possibly the original writer asks for people to expound on the History of the study for this topic.
 * Citations are reliable and links are still heading to active sites regardless of how long it has been since the original cited article was written.
 * The articles does speak to the underrepresented population of Korea but not the effect of providing statistics on how the topic affects the mention group.
 * There's heavy discussion on the talk page but it all remains civil and all were open to suggestions. Several edits have been made and accepted by the original writer and some edits were provided a detailed rebuttal of why the edit wasn't acceptable by the original contributor.
 * There's heavy discussion on the talk page but it all remains civil and all were open to suggestions. Several edits have been made and accepted by the original writer and some edits were provided a detailed rebuttal of why the edit wasn't acceptable by the original contributor.


 * Sources
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6791504/#R10
 * https://www.newportacademy.com/resources/treatment/teenage-video-game-addiction/#:~:text=Video%20Game%20Addiction%20Statistics&text=A%202021%20study%20in%20the,industry%20gains%20even%20more%20ground.