User:Cvillalva/sandbox

=Article evaluation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond = 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, everything is related. Nothing distracting. 2) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There is no citation supporting that canines play a significant role in human lives, although the article doesn't appear biased. 3) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not a lot of information but no viewpoint is overrepresented. 4) Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links work and the rest of the sources are scholarly articles that support the claim. 5) 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? The article makes the claim that dogs play a significant role in our lives but there is no reference to support it. The rest of the facts are referenced with scholarly articles. 6) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The research isn't out of date but there is so much more information on this topic that can be published, including the physical, emotional, and social effects of dogs. 7) Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There has been a few edits and suggestions to improve the article. 8) How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is part of both the WikiProject Psychology, and the WikiProject Dogs. It has been rated as a Start-Class article. 9) How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We aren't developing a point of view on the topic, but rather gathering balanced evidence to evaluate the claim.

=Areas of editing= 1) Under concepts, insert research about the social effect of dogs, delete the second sentence about social support due to repetition.

EDIT: A study conducted by J.S.J Odendaal in 2003 showed that when humans pet dogs, their bodies release oxytocin, a hormone associated with not only happiness, but bonding and affection as well. According to the social support theory, animals are a source of social support and companionship, which are necessary for well-being. Canines' social impact on humans is especially significant for those who tend to be more isolated, such as children with no siblings or elderly persons

2) In the introduction, find a citation or change the claim, "Dogs have a significant impact and role on human lives".

EDIT: (Deleted the first sentence due to no citation). The human-canine bond can be traced back 15,000 years, ever since humans began living in groups. In the United States, over 48% of households have a pet dog For centuries, dogs have been labeled as "man's best friend", offering love and loyalty to their human counterparts.

3) Under concepts, insert research about the emotional benefits dogs have on humans.

EDIT: According to self psychology, an animal can be a "self-object" that gives a sense of cohesion, support, or sustenance to a person's sense of self. Self-psychology explains why some animals are so crucial to a person's sense of self and well-being. Dog companionship often gives people a sense of purpose by causing them to develop a daily routine and giving them something to look forward to each day. Studies also show owning a dog reduces stress and alleviates anxiety.