User:Kenzrkaz/Defence mechanism/Bibliography

Analyzing sources
Is the source from a reliable publication?


 * Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.
 * Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts
 * Yes, this is a reliable source. Multiple sources already included in my chosen article have come from the National Library of Medicine, which is a website overseen by the United States government. The authors of this article incorporate in-text citations from previous studies and research conducted by psychologists, and include a comprehensive list of sources in their references to ensure readers understand the origin of this information.
 * Yes, this is another reliable source. This journal article was published on a reliable website, APA PsycNet, and is another website that other articles included in the Wikipedia page I chose have used. The author gathers information from countless references, including other academic journals, primary sources, and prominent historical figures in psychology like Freud and Vaillant, all of which the Wiki Page has previously addressed and verified as reliable.
 * Is the source verifiable?
 * For a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source.
 * Yes, this source is verifiable. You can trace any information in the article back to the references. This article maintains a neutral point of view, entirely focused on facts proven by other researchers, as the authors do not base it on beliefs or opinions.
 * Yes, this source is also verifiable. The author has gathered information from over 100 sources, giving them approximately equal weight in the text. This author also uses in-text citations and does not include a bias or personal opinion on the subject.
 * Is the source independent of the subject?
 * Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations.
 * For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent.
 * No, there is no direct connection between this source and the subject. Since this is an assessment based on other psychologists's research, it is not connected to any of the author's personal findings or experiments. It is also noted directly in the text that the publishers, editors, or any other organization are not represented in this article, and all claims come directly from the authors.
 * This source is independent from the subject and was written based on other psychological research that was compiled and analyzed to demonstrate the similarities and differences between coping and defense mechanisms. The comparisons are based solely on evidence and do not include the author's personal opinions in their comparison.
 * Is the source primary or secondary?
 * Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content.
 * Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge.
 * Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia.
 * Yes, this is a secondary source. It relies solely on previously discussed and proven factual research and concepts, lacking any original content. This article describes these facts and analyzes the information that has been provided by other sources, such as guides, manuals, and research statements.
 * This is another secondary source. The included content originates from various individuals and relies on both proven theories and facts, as well as those still subject to debate. The author does not include their standpoint on the subject or any original research.

Outline of proposed changes
1st Articles Contribution to Assigned Article "Defence Mechanisms"


 * Information from this source will add further description to the levels of defense and provide a deeper explanation on mechanisms that have been overlooked, insufficiently explained, or contain misleading information. Focusing mainly on "Vaillant's categorization" of defense mechanisms leaves a gap between his single categorization and the general categorization, which should be the focus for a page on defense mechanisms overall.
 * This source will also be used to filter out any information in the article that may have been repeated and replaced with mechanisms that were not included. Multiple mechanisms have been repeated in the article and add unnecessary length to the page.
 * The diagrams and images included in this article may also be useful to include in this article if permitted. These diagrams give readers a more in-depth visual of the hierarchy and have a broader range of mechanisms included. Placing these alongside the lists of mechanisms will let readers follow along easier and get a better understanding of the meaning behind their "ranking."
 * Will also provide information on the analyzation of defense mechanisms and explain the "why" behind their importance in the psychology field. I think this should be further discussed because this topic is ranked of high importance in the psychology section of Wikiprojects and give a reason to the plethora of information provided in the page.

2nd Articles Contribution to Assigned Article "Defence Mechanisms"


 * Would add greater detail to the "coping" section which is currently very broad and short. Adding to this section would more evenly distribute the articles weight.
 * Defining coping mechanisms as separate from defense is not stressed enough in the article. Quoting the exact definitions and then comparing and contrasting the two would clear up any confusion and add some "bulk" to the section.
 * The section also is filled with much discussion on mental illnesses and their relation to coping and defense mechanisms, which should not be the focus if the title is "Relation with coping." Drawing the attention back to comparing the two and not diving as much into the mental illness aspect of the concepts would keep the article better focused and in line with the subject.

Assignment review

 * I feel like my research and bibliography went really well! It turned out that finding sources was much more difficult than I had anticipated, and that took up most of my week. Along the way, I came across a lot of excellent articles, but I was unable to fully access many of them without paying. This really complicated my research, but I eventually found a filter on a few websites that let me search for free PDF versions. The one problem I ran into when actually writing in the sandbox was that I couldn't use the Wikipedia citation button. It showed a problem with both of my sources, so I had to copy and paste them from the page where they came from. In my opinion, the materials I did locate were really good, and there were many ways I could use them to improve my chosen Wiki article using their information. I also made sure to find content that matched the requirements for editing subjects related to psychology and medicine. I believe these two articles provided a lot of reliable information, and overall, I was pleased with them. The adjustments I recommended were something I was also satisfied with, and I believe they would greatly improve the page's coverage and cohesiveness. I am excited to start making changes!