User:Jordyn lewis/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The topic of hand washing was covered throughout the whole article while remaining relevant to the topic. There were some distractions because I was solely focused on the medical aspect of hand washing while the article discussed religious and cultural reasons for hand washing.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral and doesn't have a side that it is supporting. No claims are made in the article without a source to back up the statement, or fact.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No views are overrepresented or underrepresented as the article is neutral in background and just gives the facts about hand washing.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The links that I clicked on all worked and were credible sources.
 * 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? No bias was noted in the article. The facts are mostly followed by references, while some were not. The sources were neutral with a majority of them being government sponsored websites or other journal articles.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? More information on the importance of hand washing in the medical setting could be added, as this section was lacking.
 * 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? The discussions in the talk section discuss additions that can be made in certain sections of the article, as well as discussion of the Wikipedia Primary School because the page had been selected to be reviewed by an outside expert.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is an established article that is not on the WikiProjects page.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The wikipedia page gives very blunt facts about the information whereas the articles we read in class give more information about specifics involved in one study.

Add to an Article
For my article, I added in that nurses are involved in disenfranchised grief, not just doctors. Nurses are most often the members of the health care team that spend the most time with patients, so they will more often have closer relationships with patients. When this happens, they are more often going to have grief that may not be accepted, which is disenfranchised grief, when someone doesn't understand the relationships that others have with a loss. For this reason, it should be known that nurses are going to have disenfranchised grief, as well as doctors.

Drafting Article
One topic that I am interested in is Hand washing. This is essential for nurses and medical professionals as they are with many patients throughout the day. They are at risk for spreading bacteria that can cause infection. Another topic I am interested in is grief. Throughout a nurse's career, they will encounter someone who is either at the end of life, or is a loved one of someone at the end of life. Knowing how to handle grief is essential for a nurse. Another topic I am interested in is nurse fatigue. It is common for nurses to experience compassion fatigue or nurse fatigue as their whole job is molded around caring for others, and this can be exhausting without proper self care.

Final Article Contribution
I edited an article by adding in information relating to the importance of hand hygiene in the workforce for nurses and doctors. In more than 50% of interactions with patients, health care professionals do not wash their hands. This is ultimately dangerous for the patients as it can spread disease and infections between patients. It is therefore important that health care professionals learn the right information about hand hygiene, as well as perform hand hygiene at every necessary time in their interactions with patients.

My additions to the article have since been deleted.

Peer Review
I peer reviewed Alex's article about Oncology Nursing. He made quality additions to the article including an expanded definition of oncology nursing that included what nurses do for their patients with cancer. He also added what qualifications are needed to be an oncology nurse which is very important for anyone who wants to be an oncology nurse one day so that they know what steps they have to take to be qualified. His article was well written and his additions improved the quality of the article overall.

I also peer reviewed Milaina's article about Smoking Cessation. She made additions to the article which were very important about passive smoking, or second hand smoking. I believe that if she had more information on quitting smoking, this would also help increase the quality of the article. Overall she showed great skill in her writing abilities and I enjoyed her work.

Reflective Journal
During the evaluation of Wikipedia articles, I learned about how to tell if an article had quality information, as well as important information. I saw that some articles were completely lacking in any relevant information at all, while also finding articles that were very well established and there wasn’t much to add to them. I approached my article with the idea that I would take information from my article that I critiqued from class and apply that new knowledge to an article that I would find on Wikipedia. I chose hand washing and found that the article was pretty well established. I saw that it had a lot of the relevant information about hand washing that I already knew, while also having a lot of new information like cultural and religious ways of looking at hand washing that I hadn’t thought about before. I decided to add information about how medical professionals today are not washing their hands enough and that its important for them to always wash their hands due to the risk of spreading infection. My comments that I added to the article were deleted and are no longer there.

I edited both a hand washing article as well as a disenfranchised grief article. I thought that my edits to both articles were quality additions, especially about disenfranchised grief. I discussed how not only doctors experience it, but nurses do more often because of all of the time that they spend with patients. Its important for disenfranchised grief to be discussed because it makes it acceptable for these relationships to exist. If the relationships can be accepted, than the grief for the lost one can be acceptable too.

For the peer review section, I found it very helpful to read others articles as well as additions to articles to get a good idea for my own additions. Many articles that I read were of very high quality and I enjoyed taking the time to learn more about the topics discussed. I believe it is also very important for us to get the experience of peer reviewing and communicating criticism as well as praise in a constructive way. I wish my articles had been peer reviewed harsher so that I know better what to fix in the future, but I did enjoy the praise that I received also.

I received feedback from Wikipedia users, which was rude and not constructive at all. I was frustrated that I had taken the time to write my additions just to have them deleted with a rude comment over it. I never responded to the feedback because I didn’t want to be rude and since I am only a student, I don’t want to put out information that is incorrect. If the criticism had given constructively, I would have loved to have a conversation about ways that I can improve my research, and writing skills.

Overall I learned more from Wikipedia than I thought I would have. I think that the dashboard can be improved, as it can be very confusing to find what assignments should be done for every week. I also am wondering why we never participated in any of the in class sections of the course while we were in class face to face throughout the semester. I think this would have added to the Wikipedia experience and made it a better quality tool. I think that we could also do without the entire computer technology behind Wikipedia that isn’t really needed. I am not a fan of coding or technology most of the time for that matter, and I think we could have had the same experience while writing on blackboard discussion walls. I also think we needed more guidance throughout the semester about how to work with and use Wikipedia, as I felt most of the students in my class, myself included, felt lost throughout the whole process.