User:Camimitchell35/sandbox

User:Victoria a490/sandbox

My page keeps saying "edit source"

Included in Nature Therapy article
Even a glimpse of nature from a window helps. In one well-known study, for instance, Rachel Kaplan found that office workers with a view of nature liked their jobs more, enjoyed better health and reported greater life satisfaction.

What I plan to contribute
For this particular article, I plan to add a more concrete definition about what nature therapy is, as there is currently only one, very limited, definition. I also plan to add more about studies linked to nature therapy and what types of evidence can support the idea. I would like to explore the positive effects of nature therapy, as there is very little information currently provided about this sort of thing, and I feel that the effects for someone's health is crucial to include for the article. I think the most important things to contribute would be:


 * a more detailed, extensive definition (Cami)
 * examples of nature therapy techniques (Victoria)
 * more information on the science behind how/why nature therapy is successful (Cami)
 * information about studies being completed or psychologists that this can be linked to (Victoria)
 * effects on a person's mental/emotional health in health effects section (Cami)
 * limitations of the study/ what we don't yet know (Victoria)

An Evaluation of the current article
"The article about Nature therapy is very limited, and it is hard for me to even consider evaluating bias or neutrality. From the information present, I can see that the only information regarding history of the practice is mentioned only in regards to Asian cultures, with no mention of whether or not this existed elsewhere. There is little mention of how it connects to outdoor education, and the section about mental and physical health benefits is less than inviting. The article's content all appears to be relevant, with credible sources, but each section is underdeveloped, and, in fact, new sections should additionally be developed. The citations seem to be functional. It is essential to provide more information about this topic, especially to elaborate on the information already provided that is insufficient to a reader."

Outline of Bibliography for Nature Therapy article (links until bibliography is finalized)

 * https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/greengood
 * http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039127 (found in EBSCO)
 * http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=4cea73a8-0ee3-4750-b4ea-72df6df37928%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=133867579&db=f5h (HAPPY NEW YOU, found in EBSCO host)
 * https://www.crchealth.com/find-a-treatment-center/struggling-youth-programs/help/nature-is-therapeutic/
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/41851021 (found in JSTOR in database for Eureka College)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
"Mostly everything seemed relevant to the article topic, based on the information that I read and clicked hyperlinks for. Nothing distracted me, other than some of the headings. The headings seemed to be random, but after reading the passages, I came to understand that the information cleared up why the headings were labeled in this manner."

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
"The information still seems to be relevant, so none of it should be removed. I think it would be important to add more information about the United States, as there is plenty of information on this subject that exists, but not really any in the article."

What else could be improved?
"The article could include more information about a comparison between the bachelor of arts and a bachelor of science, in order to help the readers understand the difference. It may also be helpful to show a list of colleges or universities that offer this sort of degree."

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
"It appears to be mostly neutral, but it does leave out a lot of information on certain locations, such as Germany, which only has a little amount of detail provided for it, and the United States, which is barely discussed."

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
"I think that there should be more information about the types of courses that would allow a student to obtain this degree, as the article is very focused on what the degree might look like in different global regions. It underrepresents information about key characteristics of this degree, as opposed to others."

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
"Yes."

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
"There does not appear to be any apparent bias from the reading that I have done on some randomly selected sources, and they seem to be neutral. The facts are cited and the appropriate references are included."

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
"Based on the talk page for the article, most of the editors were concerned with the lack of information about some regions, and the lack of detail concerning more than one educational path for obtaining this degree in a liberal arts education. According to the talk page, some of the content needs to be updated from the older policies included. Another editor was concerned about the outstanding LACK of information regarding the United States."

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
"This article is rated a level-5 vital article, and is part of WikiProject Universities."

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
"I did not realized that I was supposed to pick an article related to something directly related to what we have talked about in class, but since we go to a liberal arts college, I will make the connection there. At Eureka, we focus a lot on the importance of a well-rounded education, such as understanding scientific literacy in a class like Psych101 that does not actually give you a SL credit. However, in the article, this sort of idea is not discussed, and the United States is only mentioned once in the first portion of the article."

This is great, Cameron! Don't forget to sign your talk/sandbox pages by signing using the 4 tildes in source editing mode. Dr AB Swan (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)