User:Kirsten.daley/sandbox

= "Article Evaluation" = Evaluation of Neuroimaging:
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * On the surface, everything in this article seemed to be relevant to the topic of neuroimaging, nothing in particular that really stood out enough to distract me.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This article on neuroimaging seemed to be quite neutral on most levels, although I've noticed that it made heavy references to those in the field of physiology or medicine, not really any reference made to those in the field of cognitive science that use neuroimaging for research purposes. This caused me to think that the article was written for the medicine neuroimaging implications not otherwise.
 * There is a small part of the article at the end that had been marked as 'dubious' where it made a claim that a particular imaging method is better than other because of safety reasons (gamma rays versus alpha or beta rays).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nothing in particular that are being overrepresented nor underrepresented, however this article seemed to have some missing information on some precise neuroimaging techniques such as EEG (completely no information) or ERP, implying that it didn't cover the part of the neuroimaging that focus on electrical activity, but rather focus only on these focusing on the blood flow. This is in all likelihood due to the fact that it's heavily based from medical's viewpoint.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the links provided for the citations work. Overall, the sources supplied do support the claims in the article.
 * 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?
 * In some places, the facts seemed to have some numerous appropriate references, yet in other locations, the facts made are quite underquoted with either only one reference for an entire section (at least few paragraphs in total), or with no reference given where it's appropriate to do so.
 * As to where the provided references come from, for most part, they came from appropriate and reliable sources such as independently published journals, but there's a few references that came from unreliable sources such as a website or even other Wiki page/article.
 * No note of any obvious bias evident in the article.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Yes, for one part--I was looking for information on EEG throughout this article, yet nothing was mentioned about this precise neuroimaging technique. So, obviously, a brief section on EEG would be a beneficial contribution for this article.
 * 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 had been some conversations regarding the complexity of the article that was not accessible to those unfamiliar with the topic of neuroimaging, and then those relating to addition of extra images for visual aid to understanding the meaning behind the information given in the article, and for the need of more references. Lastly, there was a part where somebody complained about the lacking of EEG information for this article and proceeded to discuss its importance and how it should be included.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The neuroimaging article had been given different ratings, B-Class for the part on Medicine/Radiology, C-Class for the Systems and Anatomy parts, and Start-Class for the Neuroscience portion. Each with varying importance ranking, ranging from mid-importance to top-importance. It's part of four distinct WikiProjects: Medicine/Radiology, Systems, Anatomy, and Neuroscience.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Well, for one instance, Wikipedia discussed the topic of Neuroimaging from the viewpoint of medicine and physiology, meanwhile the way we've approached this topic in the field of Educational Neuroscience classes came from the viewpoint of cognitive science, education, psychology, and neuroscience.

= "Deafblindness Article" =

Outline of my contributions:
 * Since the Epidemiology section of this article is completely missing, I plan to make a contribution to this section specifically because it's a critical part to the deafblindiness condition. Just like every other known medical condition, medical information is important for community's knowledge, it's important to have this information added for this precise article.
 * Rework the introductory paragraph - the current introduction does not do the deafblindness image justice. It focuses too much on the idea of "disability" in communication and education contexts, not enough on the perspective of what deaf-blind is really like as in cultured background information.
 * Improve the overall content of the entire article for same reason as above.
 * Went through the external links to remove the excessive links (of which several are inappropriate according to Wiki's guidelines with the charity websites, dead links, non-english websites, and non-relating websites.
 * Addressed the template for "this article has multiple issues" regarding epidemiology and external links

Introduction revised:

Deafblindness is the condition of little or no useful sight and little or no useful hearing. There are different degrees of vision loss and auditory loss within each individual, thus making the entire deafblind community unique with diverse types of deafblindness involved. Because of this diversity, each deafblind individual’s needs in the context of lifestyle, communication, education, and work need to be addressed singly based on each individual’s degree of dual-modality deprivation for the essential accommodations in order to improve their ability to live and opt independently. Statistically speaking, it was estimated that roughly 35,000 - 40,000 United States residents are medically deaf-blind. Helen Keller was a well-known example of a deaf-blind individual.

Furthermore, the deafblind community has its own culture interlaced, creating a community of deafblindness as much as the community of deaf, plus deaf culture, and the community of blind. Each community is made up of a group of individuals who have undergo similar experience and have a homogeneous understanding and attuned awareness of what it means and is like to be deafblind, even with a large diversity of unique backgrounds. For some deafblind individuals, they view their condition as a part of their identity.

Epidemiology
The medical condition of deafblindness comes in many different forms for each individual. For some, this condition might occurs congenitally from birth as a result of genetic defect, for others it happen suddenly due to a form of illness or accident that results in a modality deprivation of either vision or auditory, or both. Or a person might be born deaf and become blind at a later stage in life, and vice versa. In any given case of deafblindness, there are many possible onsets and causes of this condition, some happen gradually, others happen unexpectedly and suddenly. Either way, the diagnosis of deafblindness varies in a wide range that could be medically classified into specific types based on one’s symptoms and causes.

There are two overarching types of deafblindness: congenital and acquired.

Congenital deafblindness: condition of deafblindness from birth Acquired deafblindnness: condition of deafblindness developmental later in life  References: 
 * Pregnancy complexities
 * Effects of alcohol/drugs
 * Fetal alcohol syndrome
 * A result of prematurity
 * Causes from illness/ infection
 * Rubella
 * AIDS
 * Syphilis
 * Toxoplasmosis
 * Genetic conditions (evident from birth)
 * Anomalies/ Syndromes (there are numerous genetic defects that may contribute to one's medical condition of deafblindness, of which some of more well-known syndromes are listed)
 * CHARGE Association
 * Down Syndrome
 * Marshall Syndrome
 * Rubella Syndrome
 * Stickler Syndrome
 * Trisomy 13
 * Genetic conditions (evident at a later stage in life)
 * Usher syndrome
 * Alport Syndrome
 * Age-relate loss of modality (vision or auditory or both)
 * Illness
 * Meningitis
 * Somatic injuries
 * Brain damage/ Trauma
 * Stroke
 * Permanent physical damage (of or/and relating to vision or/and auditory)

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/deafblindness/causes/

https://nationaldb.org/library/list/6 > http://documents.nationaldb.org/products/etiologies2001.pdf

https://www.helenkeller.org/hknc/common-causes-0

https://www.deafblindinformation.org.au/about-deafblindness/causes/conditions-syndromes/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25114064

https://nationaldb.org/library/page/1934

https://www.msa.state.mn.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=572985&type=d&pREC_ID=966579