User:Dh05090/sandbox

Disengagement Theory

I would really like to add more information to this article. When I first began reading the article, I felt that the whole idea of disengagement theory was very negative and perpetuated negative stereotypes about older people. While I understand that the information was some of the first information gathered in gerontological studies, I think it is important to link information about current theories that present older adulthood in a more positive light. At the very least I think the article should address the way the disengagement theory paints a stereotypical image of older adults. The article could also go further into how diverse the older population is and how different social identities impact the extent of "disengagement" or, vice versa, involvement and community engagement of the aging population.

Glenn John, S. (2008). Measuring Diversity in Daily Social Contact: The Contribution of Social Context, Work and Leisure on the Opportunity for Engagement. Social Indicators Research, (2), 275. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9115-5

Hinterlong, J. E., & Williamson, A. (2006). The Effects of Civic Engagement of Current and Future Cohorts of Older Adults. Generations, 30(4), 10-17.

Johnson, K. J., & Mutchler, J. E. (2014). The Emergence of a Positive Gerontology: From Disengagement to Social Involvement. Gerontologist, 54(1), 93-100.

Article Evaluation
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Most topics in the article are relevant to the topic. The topic itself is so general, but I feel as if the topic is dissected and addressed in sufficient detail. There was a lot of information under Effects of Aging that was distracting to me particularly. There was just too much information and I think that the purpose of the section was clear without the extra information.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral. There was some language choice that came off as a little ageist. I feel like comparing the aging population to disabled or "elderly" is one the border of discrimination.
 * Check a few citations (hint: focus on the section about Sociology). Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Where do the citations come from?
 * All of the links work in the sociology section. The citations come from various reputable journals, but the last citation is formatted incorrectly. The authors last name should be listed first, then the first name.
 * 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 majority of sources come from reliable journals. Some of the sources are missing titles, but the source is still cited in correct format.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I think that the life span names and categorizations are a little out of date. The categorizations of older adulthood needs to be updated, and the language used to describe the aging population is somewhat outdated.
 * 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 isn't much conversation about this article, other than a few posts about edits.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is Class-B rated, which is a pretty good ranking. The article is being referenced in other published works, which is evidence that the information is pretty accurate. The article is part of several WikiProjects including: Aging and Culture, Biology, Health and Fitness, Medicine, World's Oldest People.