User:Kr05077/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Ageing article:
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * For the most part, all the different sections seemed to relate to the topic of aging. The Cultural References section seemed a bit random to me because it was just two unrelated sentences that were only loosely relevant to the topic of aging.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article seems mostly neutral. However, I did notice that the article seemed to portray a pretty negative view on where healthcare and social security are headed for older adults in America, suggesting a pretty biased view.
 * 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?
 * The citations in the Sociology section do work, but they take you to other Wikipedia articles with only B-Class and even C-Class ratings. The cited articles seemed to be relevant, but the whole section on Sociology just seemed a bit awkward to me. The five different views of aging were not further explained at all, so, even though a link explains what maturity is, the article does not state what the aging as maturity view actually means. This is true of the sentence on retirement as well. A link leads you to an article explaining what retirement is, but the article does not specifically state what kind of negative or positive consequences come along with retirement. The section just doesn't appear to be too informative to me.
 * 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?
 * Many of them are appropriate references, but some are not. For example, in the Economics section the article states, "the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that by 2050 that number will rise to approximately 22%," but when you click the linked reference it just takes you to a Wikipedia page that explains what the UNFPA is. The link given does show an actual reference to where that fact came from like you would assume it would. So it's not that the references were unreliable, just unhelpful.
 * The sources I viewed appeared to be neutral sources, and I did not notice any noted biases.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * In the Economics sections, I noticed that the article mentions how spending on home healthcare was lowered by 12.5%, but the numbers are from 1996-2000. So, those numbers are pretty out of date and I wasn't really sure how they were still relevant. However, the article covered so many topics under the umbrella of aging that I can't really think of another section it should have covered. The only thing it needs is less irrelevant cited sources and more helpful ones.
 * 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?
 * After looking at the Talk page, there's only a couple comments written on there. One person suggested fixing the spelling of the word "ageing", but upon further investigation I discovered that this article is written in British English, so "ageing" is actually the correct spelling. The remaining two additions to the Talk page were real additions. One person modified a link, and another added some really interesting information about loneliness affecting aging to the prevention portion of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article has a B-Class rating, which means it's an acceptable article but may not be quite complete enough or may need a little further work before receiving a good article status. And there several Wikiprojects that were listed on the Talk page, saying that the Ageing article of interest to those such as Wikiproject Sociology, Wikiproject Biology, Wikiproject World's Oldest People, and more.

Article Proposal

 * Option #1: Developmental impact of child neglect in early childhood
 * This is my preferred topic!
 * I would like to research how neglect affects aging and development
 * I think a lot could be edited or added under the "physical health development" section or the "social and emotional development" section
 * Developmental impact of child neglect in early childhood
 * Option #2: Homelessness and aging
 * This is an interesting topic I'd like to research more
 * There's barely any content at all, so I would add more to the research section of the article
 * Homelessness and Aging
 * Chosen article: Developmental impact of child neglect in early childhood
 * This article does not contain very much information about failure to thrive in neglected children. I would like to research the specific causes and effects/symptoms of failure to thrive, and possibly how to recognize it as well. The article says that failure to thrive can stem from neglect, but how? What is the relationship, and what kinds of neglect are we talking about? These are things I would like to research and add. Also, I would like to research and add more information about the "potentially permanent physical disabilities" failure to thrive can leave a child with because the article does not give sufficient details.
 * 3 Sources:
 * Homan, Gretchen, MD. "Failure to Thrive: A Practical Guide." American Family Physician, vol. 94, no. 4, http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.libez.lib.georgiasouthern.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=61c0e85b-3cda-418b-b112-9bfbd3ab9188@sessionmgr120. Accessed 7 February 2018.
 * Nützenadel W: Failure to thrive in childhood. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108(38): 642–9. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=12&sid=61c0e85b-3cda-418b-b112-9bfbd3ab9188%40sessionmgr120. Accessed 7 February 2018.
 * Batchelor, Jane. "Failure to Thrive Revisited." Child Abuse Review, vol. 17, 2008, http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=61c0e85b-3cda-418b-b112-9bfbd3ab9188%40sessionmgr120. Accessed 7 February 2018.

Changes to the Article

 * There exists already a section of the article titled "Physical Health Development". Within that section, failure to thrive (FTT) is briefly mentioned.
 * I want to:
 * Add a detailed definition and description of what FTT really is
 * List and describe specific physical disabilities a child may suffer due to FTT
 * What specific kinds of neglect lead to FTT
 * How common or rare FTT is

Rough Draft
I added the following section on non-organic failure to thrive:

(The underlined sentences were the only existing sentences about failure to thrive that were accurate, relevant, or necessary enough to keep.)

Non-Organic Failure to Thrive
A common outcome of neglect is non-organic failure to thrive in infants and children. "Non-organic" simply means that the child's failure to thrive cannot be explained by an organic cause. Failure to thrive is a term that is typically used to describe a child with an abnormal pattern of weight gain/loss or experiencing insufficient growth patterns in accordance with a child's age and developmental stage. These conditions can arise when a child does not receive adequate nutrition or necessary medical attention required for proper physical growth and development. Neglect can play a role in non-organic failure to thrive because children who experience neglect are often malnourished, not receiving proper nutrients, or not eating enough calories in general; this hinders their growth and development. The most common symptoms of non-organic failure to thrive are insufficient weight gain or growth in height, and these common symptoms can affect a child over his/her life course by setting them back in weight class and can hinder their overall growth and development. And in more extreme cases, non-organic failure to thrive can affect a child over their whole life course by actually damaging his/her cognitive development and his/her immune system, making the child much more likely to miss developmental milestones and much more prone to illness even later into adulthood.

Peer Review:
You added a ton of new insights and thoughts to your article. What once was bland now has more information and seems more believable and informational. Great job on adding an adequate amount of information to make your article even better. Also, you did a great job on finding more sources to back your claims up and to show where your information came from.

-Hannah Medforth

Response to Hannah's peer review:

Hannah's review was so encouraging! I'm glad to know I provided a sufficient amount of information to the article to improve it. In future editing, I think I need to have more balance in my use of sources. I cited one source much more than the other two.

Sources: