User:Parouz/sandbox

Article Evaluation
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Catchiness
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * I chose this article as I am personally very interested in the intersection of music and social media. I find music to be a truly boundless language that connects individuals of different backgrounds, cultures, and tongues, regardless of the listeners' depth of music knowledge. On this topic, I have always wondered what exactly causes an "earworm", what factors lead to a "catchy song", and how does social media perceive this phenomenon. By reading this article, I hope to have these questions answered.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead successfully defines "catchiness" in a single concise and easy to digest sentence. However, albeit the lead's concise nature, I would actually argue that it is missing a few important details that are integral to capturing a general understanding of the article topic, including but not limited to the four main factors that lead to a song being catchy. It is important for the listener to gain a general understanding of catchiness by just reading the lead. The lead also contains information from a variety of sources including a quote from Selling Sounds: The Commercial Revolution in American Music describing the underlying reasons behind catchiness, and one from Todd Tremlin which lists physical symptoms of listening to a catchy song.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The article's content is very relevant to the topic. The author stays in line throughout the article by skillfully provide supporting evidence of how the phenomenon of 'earworms' came to be. Although the content is on topic, the author could have possibly provided more content and supporting evidence. The article only contains one 'analysis' section and is rather short. As an example of an improvement, I'm sure the article would benefit from adding a section that explores the biological reasonings behind 'earworms'. Lastly, despite the article containing content from sources as recent as two years ago (2017), I suspect that there has been more information published regarding the topic since then. To add on to this, not a lot revisions have been made since the original publishing of the article in 2012.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

Even though the article is neutral, and does not use any personal language throughout, there are certain claims that seem over exaggerated, even with some supporting evidence present. An example of this is "often, a song with few qualities can still become immensely popular due to its catchiness." The choice of words in the phrase immensely popular is overly strong in my opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The author uses appropriate sources to support the claims provided in the article. The sources include a variety of academic journals, published articles and papers, and news sources. Aside from being slightly out of date as mentioned before, the sources echo the most prevalent information on this topic. I have also checked each citation's respective hyperlink, and it seems as if every source is active as of this moment.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The article is concise, clear, and easy to digest. However, it is quite short and includes only one section that explores several possible explanations for catchiness. This section is well-organized and draws from a variety of scholarly and reputable sources to form an understanding of the psychology of 'earworms'. That being said, including other sections that provide more information on catchiness from different angles can improve this article by a large margin. Possible sections include: a section that focuses on the biological processes that make an 'earworm' possible, a section that details any cures for 'catchiness', or a section detailing the effect of this phenomenon in popular culture and mainstream media.

To my knowledge, the article also lacks any grammatical and spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

There is no media included in the article. I believe that including appropriate visuals and/or figures can significantly enhance a readers' learning experience as some readers are visual learners.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

There is one comment in the talk page from 2014. User 'geordie' explains that the article lacks any scientific sources as it views catchiness from a psychological perspective. Therefore, he/she/they have taken the liberty to remove some of the content on the 'Catchiness' article merge anything helpful to the 'Earworm' article.

The article is also part of a WikiProject, yet it has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale, and as start-class on the project's quality scale. Therefore, there is a great deal of room for improvement in the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

The article seems to remain inactive for the most part. Although the material included is well-written, lacks any spelling and grammatical mistakes, and has an organized structure, the article is severely underdeveloped. The article successfully uses a variety of credible different sources to explain 'catchiness' from a psychological/behavioral perspective, but there is minimal information on the biological science that underlies this phenomenon. There is also a lack of information on the societal implications of 'earworms', and the role it plays in popular culture and social media. Including more research on these topics can help the article improve significantly.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Catchiness

Article Notes, Ideas, Critiques
Chosen Article: Canadian Mental Health Association


 * The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) article is obviously not written in depth, rated with an S-class on Wikipedia, allowing our group the opportunity to make a substantial impact on the article. For example, the only current subsection of the article is the history of the CMHA; however, theoretically, many more subsections can be added- potential sections include the current state of the CMHA, current programs & services offered by the CMHA, CMHA’s biggest partner organizations within Canada, CMHA’s impact on Canadian society, and much more.  Given that our MoveMe topic is #BellLetsTalk, (and Bell Canada is a partner organization of CMHA), I think an important subsection that our group should absolutely work on is CMHA’s partner organizations within Canada.
 * An important critique to note is that the article is lacking proper citations; this is important to note as our group can not only work on improving and adding content to the article, but also improving the quality of what is already written.  As we do our research, I believe it is important to add citations into what is already written.
 * The history section of the article is far too lengthy and operates on too broad of a timeline. It spans 100 years of events from the CMHA’s creation to recent impacts. The history section needs to be condensed to important initial events, and more recent incidents should be detailed in seperate sections.
 * In order to maintain a non-biased form of writing, it will be important to explain where the CMHA has fallen short or some critiques of the organization. A critique section is lacking and will be impactful for our group to add.
 * The introduction section of the page is too short in a way that it is not informative enough to provide the readers with a complete and objective overview of the organization. There were also some claims, in the introduction, that were not backed up with proper sources. For example, it claimed that it is “one of the largest and oldest” organization.
 * Another way of improving the article is by rephrasing some of the sentences that have weaker sentence structures, checking for its grammar mistakes, and substituting some vocabularies that are more appropriate to deliver the meanings of the sentences.
 * Wikipedia identifies ‘advertisement-like’ writing as a potential issue of the article. Upon reading the article, I’ve noticed that it is written in a rather subjective light, portraying Canadian Mental Health Association as a righteous and ethically good company. An article should not try to persuade the reader of the writer's opinion, and should remain as unbiased as possible. One way to achieve this is to change the wordage to remove personal perspectives, and to include a critiques section that counteracts CMHA’s good deeds.
 * The article also lacks any visualizations or illustrations. Visualizations are a very effective way of increasing the readers’ understanding of the subject matter and as it stands, the article does not include any. A drawn out timeline of the most important events would compliment the ‘History’ section of the article very well. Other possible visualizations include CMHA’s headquarters, their website/services layout, or their association hierarchy. Pictures of events hosted by the association can also shed some light on the association’s dealings with the general public.
 * A major problem with the article is its sources. Not only does the article lack many sources and citations, but one of the two sources listed under the article’s References links to an invalid page. This is problematic as the reader will be unable to find the original source, which takes away from the validity of the article. On top of this, the article does not reference any new information about the topic, which decreases the articles temporality and relevancy.

Talk Page Additions
Given the importance of the Canadian Mental Health Association within Canada, I believe it is very important to strengthen the quality and content of this article. Below are some suggestions as to potential improvements: -Add Additional Subsections: Potential subsection ideas are: "Current CMHA Programs", "Current CMHA Status", "Partner Organizations of CMHA", "Impact on Canadian Society", "CMHA Team", etc. -Add Citations Where Necessary to Content Already Written

Also below are potential bibliography additions that are relevant to the above improvements: - https://peersupportcanada.ca/ -Crainford, Leonard. “The Canadian Mental Health Association.” Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne De Sante'e Publique, vol. 61, no. 5, 1970, pp. 417–422. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41984548. Accessed 25 Feb. 2020. - https://cmha.ca/partners - https://cmha.ca/about-cmha/national-staff

Please let me know if you agree or disagree with the above! D3032447367 (talk)

Agreed. I also think the article could use something like a critiques or short-fallings section to eliminate bias. The section could include ongoing mental health issues in Canada or past failures to push for legislation and increase funding. Also, I think the history section is far too long and needs to be condensed. The history section could be compressed to key events, and recent occurrences could be moved to more relevant sections. Rpaylor (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, we can also add a section in which we mentioned their fundraising efforts to show how they receive funding for their efforts of raising mental health awareness. Markowijaya (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Great ideas all around. I've also thought about some potential changes to the article that can improve the validity and readability.

Firstly, Wikipedia identifies ‘advertisement-like’ writing as a potential issue of the article. An article should not try to persuade the reader of the writer's opinion, and should remain as unbiased as possible. One way to achieve this is to change the wordage to remove personal perspectives, and to include a critiques section that counteracts CMHA’s good deeds.

Secondly, visualizations are a very effective way of increasing the readers’ understanding of the subject matter and as it stands, the article does not include any. A drawn out timeline of the most important events would compliment the ‘History’ section of the article very well. Other possible visualizations include CMHA’s headquarters, their website/services layout, or their association hierarchy. Pictures of events hosted by the association can also be very effective.

Lastly, one of the two sources listed under the article’s References links to an invalid page. This takes away from the validity of the article. The article should also reference new information about the topic in order to stay up to date. Finally, the following is a list of potential sources (Bibliography) that can improve the article:


 * https://letstalk.bell.ca/en/taking-positive-action/3/canadian-mental-health-association
 * https://peersupportcanada.ca/
 * Crainford, Leonard. “The Canadian Mental Health Association.” Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne De Sante'e Publique, vol. 61, no. 5, 1970, pp. 417–422. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41984548. Accessed 25 Feb. 2020.
 * https://cmha.ca/partners
 * https://cmha.ca/about-cmha/national-staff
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794956/
 * https://sk.cmha.ca/news/canadian-mental-health-association-calls-new-legislation-bring-mental-health-balance-physical-health/
 * https://cmha.ca/documents/cmha-position-on-medical-assistance-in-dying
 * https://cmhapeeldufferin.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2012-2013-Governance-Policies-Updated-September-2013.pdf
 * https://globalnews.ca/news/6589257/kingston-branch-cmha-closure/
 * https://seattlethunderbirds.com/article/t-birds-and-crisis-connections-team-up-to-raise-awareness-of-mental-health-issues
 * https://www.iheartradio.ca/ez-rock/ez-rock-penticton/news/canadian-mental-health-association-receives-generous-donation-1.10536359
 * https://www.portageonline.com/local/cmha-central-cuts-ribbon-for-new-location

Parouz (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Add Section: Movement Leaders
Bell Telecommunications has designated the Bell Let’s Talk Movement as having two different sectors of movement leaders: Experts and Ambassadors. Experts of the Bell Let’s Talk movement include 22 people, primarily with medical and higher degrees; their primary role is to offer support and raise awareness for the Bell Let’s Talk Movement. By contrast, Ambassadors of the Bell Let’s Talk movement include 6 people, whose lives are all within the public eye; their primary role is to inspire change about how mental illness and health are discussed. *Addition from Celebrity Support Section detailed below”. The Bell Let’s Talk Movement also denotes a special team section - “Faces of Mental Illness”. This team is composed of five members of the general population: Anita Manley, Donovan Taplin, Jillian Brown, Mélissa Néron, and Onika Dainty. Each team member respectively has their own story and background regarding mental illness, and utilizes the Bell Let’s Talk movement to platform their stories and display the ability to overcome adversity.

Edit Section: Celebrity Support

Move “The program is supported by dozens of other self-described 'team members,' who's stories surrounding their experiences with mental health are promoted on the Bell Let's Talk website and other Bell Media properties leading up to Bell Let's Talk Day.” to the above section that will be added entitled, “Movement Leaders”.

Add section: Programs
CMHA has several different partners and programs directed at combating mental health issues. One of these is Peer Support Canada, an organization which specializes in connecting certified people who have experienced and beaten mental health issues with current sufferers. Not Myself Today is a campaign directed at addressing mental health issues in the workplace through training and services in corporations. Carryit is a toolkit to be used by those involved in schools to carry with them in case of opioid overdoses.

Condense History section
Delete: “On September 30, 1918, Hincks and Keyes arrived in Winnipeg, where they visited several institutions. They also toured the Salvation Army Industrial Home and the Home for Incurables in Portage la Prairie and were so shocked by what they found that they immediately returned to Winnipeg to consult with government representatives. The CNCMH prepared a confidential report on its findings which was submitted to the government and the Public Welfare Commission.”, “The CNCMH was also interested in advocated improvements to the psychiatric screening of immigrants. Dr. Clarke's lectures and official reports emphasized this fact.”, and “CNCMH surveys of schoolchildren, conducted in several centres in Ontario and Quebec, resulted in over 150 special classes for retarded children being established by school boards. Mental Hygiene clinics were promoted and, in some cases, partially supported. A study of the psychiatric screening of immigrants resulted in a reduction of the number of new Canadians with mental disorders. The problem of "shell shock" and the rehabilitation of soldiers suffering from mental and nervous disorders was addressed through co-operation with DSCR and the Director General of Medical Services in the army. A beginning was made on public and professional education in mental hygiene and psychiatry.”

Add section: Critiques
The CMHA has had to close down branches due to poor fundraising efforts. The Kingston branch had to close down after over 40 years of operation due to lack of financial capital. In 2017, Bill C-14 was passed to grant medical assistance in dying. The CMHA holds a stance that more preventative measures should be invested in to prevent the need of MAiD. The passing of this bill is an example of the CMHA’s inability to garner enough political power to support their viewpoints. Even after exclaiming the organization's perspective in a public statement and calling for action, no significant change has been made to date.

Add section: Impact on Canadian Society
In 2018, CMHA published a report to show all the impacts that it has accomplished in their hundred years of contribution. Some of the works they have done include raising awareness not only to the general public by creating #MentalHealthWeek, but also in the workforce by creating The Workforce Mental Health Collaborative. CMHA also created programs, services, conferences and resources such as Health Promotion & Illness Prevention programs in 294 communities, Evidence-Based Programming in 291 communities, Youth services and supports in 216 communities, Suicide Prevention initiatives in 201 communities, Veterans, Military personnel and their families crisis services, rehabilitation and support in 68 communities, and Substance Use/Addiction services in 207 communities.

Spelling & Grammar

 * “It gave a graphic account of Beers' own mental illness...” → “It gave a graphic account of Beers' mental illness...” (Avoids tautology)
 * “Dr. Clarke conducted a quick inspection soldier patients..." → “Dr. Clarke conducted a quick inspection of soldier patients...” (Missing preposition)
 * “In accordance with the committee's recommendations…” → “Under the committee's recommendations…” (Avoids wordy language)
 * “resulted in a reduction of the number of” → “resulted in a reduction in the number of” (Correct preposition)

Add section: Public Policy
The CMHA releases public statements criticizing local, provincial, and federal regulation as they pertain to mental health. Often, the statements express the organization’s perspective on a certain issue and subsequently call for action.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD)

The Canadian Bill C-14 formally legalized assisted dying and laid out the foundations of how it can be accessed by the patients in need. In September 2017, CMHA released a statement declaring their position that MAiD for psychiatric patients should remain illegal. This statement is rooted in the organization’s core belief in recovery from illness. The organization continued to provide the government with a number of recommendations including:


 * Ensuring that recovery-oriented practices are implemented
 * Continuing to invest in community mental health and addictions services and supports
 * Developing and funding the implementation of a national suicide prevention strategy
 * Investing in research to better understand mental illnesses.

Call for Mental Health Legislation

In September 2018, CMHA called for new legislation to bring mental health into balance with physical health. This statement followed a survey commissioned by the CMHA discovered that over half of Canadians (53%) consider anxiety and depression to be ‘epidemic’ in Canada.

Opioid Crisis Response

Following the escalating rates of opioid-related injuries and deaths in Canada in 2009, CMHA developed and in-depth evidence-based policy and regulation paper directed at the Canadian government, policy markers and health organizations. CMHA gathered resources and organizations such as the Public Policy Working Group, the National Council of Persons with Lived Experience, the national provincial executive team and the national board of directors in drafting this policy paper.

Proposal to Establish a National Health Human Resources Infrastructure Fund

In August 2009, the CMHA endorsed Health Action Lobby’s (HEAL) document concluding that a health human resources infrastructure is required in Canada. CMHA cited an aging workforce and a higher volume and complexity of population health needs as reasons to establish this fund, along with the fact that the last similar act (Health Resources Fund Act) was introduced over 50 years ago in 1966.

Add visualizations and media
The article is currently void of any visualizations, illustrations, or media. Visualizations are a very effective way of increasing the readers’ understanding of the subject matter. Possible visualizations include a timeline of the most important events to compliment the ‘History’ section, their website/services layout, organization logo, or their association hierarchy. Pictures of events hosted by the association can also shed some light on the association’s dealings with the general public. In order to avoid unnecessary uploads to Wikimedia, visualizations will be accessed and added in the final draft depending on the revised article.

Bell Let's Talk
Review 1

The introduction does a great job summarizing the main points of the article. In the history section, the article briefly mentions something called "Bell Lets Talk Day", but does not go into much detail about it. This seems like important content that the article should cover. The year by year summary of results is effective in conveying the successes of this program. The criticism section perhaps should be relabeled controversy, as the content there seems a bit more serious than just criticism. Overall, good job.Adamash981 (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your peer review; it was very helpful. I know that we have discussed going into more detail about "Bell Let's Talk Day", but did not get that far - we will make sure to add that in, since you're right, it is a substantial part of the movement. I like the idea of relabeling the criticism section to controversy, and will make that change now.  Thanks again! D3032447367 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Review 2 Criticism section: There is a good amount of quotes from different sources used in this section to provide critique of the movement. In particular to the "Treatment of Bell employees", perhaps adding more information about legal actions that McLean/other employees have taken or Bell's response to the critique may help take it to the next level. I do agree with Adamash981's comment on perhaps the criticism section should be relabeled as controversy of the movement. It's seems that the section currently notes not about criticism towards the movement itself, but rather Bell as an organization, which seems to be a separate issue. 23gobears (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your review, and your compliment of usage of different sources. I have relabeled the section as Adamash981 and yourself suggested, and I agree with that point. I also will look into doing more research of the "Treatment of Bell employees", particularly legal actions and Bell's response, as I agree this could make the article more competent.  Thanks again! D3032447367 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Review 3 Hello! I'll try to provide a broad overview of my thoughts on the Wikipedia Article. Introduction: The introduction could use more external sources to support claims stating that the movement was the "single largest corporate commitment to mental health in Canada." I would also say that certain parts of the intro can be cut out to make it more concise. For example, the line in the middle of the paragraph states "the CSR initiatives encourages the use of various platforms ...increasing awareness of mental health and reducing stigma" all of which was mentioned in the beginning. I do find the "Criticism" portion of the article to be the most interesting! I do agree with other comments already here mentioning the distinction between the criticism against the company itself vs. the movement, but I think having "Criticism" or "Controversy" are good, broad terms to encompass different problems. Maybe having sub-headings can help? Hope this was helpful to some extent! Mary Mijares (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your peer review. And, to your point, it was very helpful!  I will look into perhaps finding a source to support that respective claim, but I believe this is widely known information throughout Canadian society, so I'm not sure it is crucial to do so.  Does anyone else agree with this?  I agree with your point of cutting that respective clause to make it more concise, and will do so right now.  I have changed the heading to Controversy as others have suggested.  Although I do believe they encompass different problems, I think the respective problems we discuss are more closely aligned with Controversy, so I have gone with that.  Thanks so much again! D3032447367 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Review 4

As mentioned above, I will also provide a broad overview of my thoughts on the Wikipedia Article. Introduction: I think the introduction did a great job of giving an overview of the movement and also does a fantastic job of setting up the format of the article. I do agree that more external sources would reinforce the claims made in the introduction, the aforementioned quote is from the movement website and I believe and outside source that could corroborate the claims would strengthen the introduction. History: I like the concise nature of the history section, however, I believe after reviewing source 11 that the last sentence could be elaborated on. The article provides pertinent information on why it was designed with a "marketing motive" in mind. Methods: For methods I really like how interactions are defined. With this, I think adding some analytical results from social media such as searches and events would add deeper layer of how the movement has progressed prior to showing that progression in results. Results and major contributions: I think this section is great, I really like the layout year by year. Criticism: As mentioned multiple times above, I believe this should be broken up into criticism and controversy. I believe the critical articles are spot on, but as soon as the freedom of information revelations are introduced, I think this develops a tangible controversy which exceeds the limits of just being criticism. Far out mate (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your inputs. They are really helpful in improving this article and I will definitely add some of your suggestions to it. For the introduction, I concur that adding more outside sources makes sense and will make the article more credible. As for the 'history' section, I think the purpose of the section is to simply introduce the movement briefly and more elaborated information about the marketing motive is discussed in the 'controversy' section. What do you guys think? I agree that more analytical results would add a better overview of the progress of the movement. Thanks once again! Markowijaya (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Review 5 The introduction does a great job of setting up the rest of the article and provides high-level oversight. I agree with my classmates that say more external sources would back up the claims made and make for a stronger article moving forward. The results and major contributions section feels a bit tedious and could be cleaned up and shortened to only include the most relevant and insightful talking points. By having it year by year, it is hard to determine which years were most important and where to find the most impactful information. Any exciting result gets lost in the rest of the section. Lastly, separating the criticisms of the company and the criticisms of the movement could be a great distinction and could be done with subheadings. It also seems that each criticism is only cited by one source, so it would be nice to have more sources and more perspectives which may correct any bias that exists. By only having one source, any bias coming from that individual article can easily make it into the page, and it is important to have a neutral point of view. AprilGa91962893 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions. I totally agree that more external sources should be added in order to strengthen the article's claims, as mentioned by others as well. I think that other people find the layout of the 'results and major contributions' to be really neat, but I understand your concerns. How about adding the most relevant and impactful results in the overview of the section? This way, readers know which years are the most impactful, but are still able to know the results from other years. Lastly, since this article is about the movement, I think most of the criticisms written on this article should be about the movement instead of the company. I will add more sources for the criticism as well! Thank you once again Markowijaya (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Mental Health Association
Review 1

The introduction on this article needs a lot of work. It could benefit from being a full paragraph summarizing the article. The history section would be more readable if it was grouped up into sections instead of just being a lot of facts. For instance, since there is a lot of information about the first meeting, that could be its own section. Also, there are only a few references. Perhaps a few more could be added. News articles could be a good place to start with this. Adamash981 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback! I agree with your suggestion that the introduction should be more encompassing of the whole article. Things like services provided and the purpose of the CMHA would be beneficial. I also agree with splitting up the history section. It would be much easier to read if it were sectioned up. Also, thank you for the suggestion on references. We will look into those sources to bring in more references. Rpaylor (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Review 2

Peer evaluation directed at the MoveMe group working on this article:

I think the original article had very limited information overall since it mainly only focused on the organization’s history and the founder. Therefore, I think all the sections your group intends to add will make really helpful additions!

I noticed that your group wanted to make some edits to the history section. I thought I might suggest that when editing, to maybe be wary of some potential bias that might come through in the original writing. In a general sense, the article doesn’t seem extremely biased since a lot of it is just facts about the organization’s history. However, there were some parts here and there that I felt could still come off as biased to certain readers. For example, there’s a line in the original article that says “It proved very successful: he recruited an impressive list of potential members and donors.” I personally felt as though this might seem like the writer is pushing for an opinion that’s in favor of the success of Hincks. It classified his efforts as “successful” and “impressive”, but readers might better be served if these phrases were replaced with actual facts/statistics about who these members are or how many of them exist.

The section you wrote about “Programs” is really interesting to me, especially because I think it would be really helpful for readers to have this section in the article. However, I personally would love to know more about the specifics of the programs. I believe you mentioned Peer Support Canada, Not Myself Today, and Carryit. You provided a brief description on what these programs are, but as a reader I was interested to know a little extra context to better understand these important initiatives that were started.

Additionally, I think the section on “Public Policy” that you intend on adding will be very informative. To me, this adds an element about explaining the effects and developments that have come from the organization. Since the original article only focused on the history, this new section will likely add value to the article by addressing a topic that hasn’t been mentioned at all yet. This new addition ultimately allows the article to capture not only the important past of the organization, but also the key events that followed its founding. Since this section is about listing and explaining policies, none of the writing comes across as biased. I find it to be very clear that you’re just trying to communicate the information to readers from a factual standpoint, not an opinion-based one.

In general, the original article is lacking in cited sources, but it’s obvious that your group has done a lot of research for your edits and will be contributing to this aspect that’s currently missing from the article. Overall it’s clear you guys were very thoughtful about how to make the article better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha.Holdt (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your resourceful feedback! I definitely agree with you in terms of adding more sections to the article to form a better picture of the CMHA for the reader. To your first point, minimizing bias and using neutral language is certainly one of our team's main objectives moving forward. By using appropriate wordage that avoids taking a perspective, we hope to remove the article's 'written like an advertisement' flag, as mentioned by Wikipedia. In terms of the "Programs" section, I believe it is a great idea to provide an overview of the notable programs/partners instead of just including a name and a brief description. We will be sure to conduct more research on each program as we improve our article. Moving forward, I appreciate your positive comments regarding the "Public Policy" section. We certainly hope to paint a better picture of the organizations' effects on Canadian society without presenting inherit bias. Lastly, to your point about sources, we will make sure to add proper citation for the article, as well as any extra details/information included. Once again, thank you very much for your insightful feedback!
 * Parouz (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Review 3

Positive Points

CONTENT: The article had a succinct and clear lead section. The added section on public policy makes reference to specific crises, such as the opioid crisis and the establishment of the National Health Human Resources Infrastructure Fund.

TONE: The article gives the impression of being impartial. To a certain extent, there is good coverage of facts in an unembellished manner. There is no concern about the CMHA presenting an excessively positive image of itself, bolstered by the addition of the “Critiques” section.

Areas of Improvement

BALANCE: The recommended deletion of the History section was a good idea because there is a lot of information which might not be necessary for the reader. Even with the deletions, this section remains significantly longer than the rest of the article, covering almost 100 years of history. There is a lot of information covered, often details that might not be necessary. For instance, the short historical note about the first meeting of the CMHA’s predecessor might not be essential. There can also be an extension to the new sections about “Critiques” and “Impact on Canadian society”.

NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVE: In terms of ensuring a neutral perspective, it is valuable to add the “Critiques” section. However, the information here is primarily from the CMHA itself. It would be valuable to consider external perspectives, such as other Canadian mental health groups. Similarly, the “impact on Canadian society” section draws from the CMHA without other independent sources to ensure a clear reflection of the various aspects of the topic.

SOURCES: Currently, the sources used are primarily written by CMHA National, as well as websites to show the different programs. There can be an improvement in the use of reliable sources, by including independent journal articles about the work of the CMHA. References would be extremely critical for the ‘Critiques” and “Impact on Canadian Society” sections, where it is important to avoid leaning to a single perspective.

Jasdeep-SH (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your feedback! We too think that diving into how the CMHA has played a role in various events will add great value to the article and give more context to what the association has done. As the article stands now, the tone needs some work. Editing things like you said about adding the critiques section will be beneficial, along with taking out specific verbiage such as "important" program. Regarding the balance of the article, we agree with your comments. The history section needs to be shortened and sectioned. I think we can still include the first CHMA meeting, but it shouldn't be more than one sentence. In terms of suggestions you offered on sources, those are valuable insights that we will act upon. There is lots of information through the CMHA's website and the websites of their partners, but in order to find more unbiased information, we will seek out references from independent groups or journalism.Rpaylor (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Review 4

Lead: The lead is short, understandably because there is only one section so far. Once you add more information, you can expand on the lead to be more encompassing.

Content:I see that other peer reviews talk about a "Programs" section but I am not seeing it on my end... however, I agree that a "Programs" section would greatly add to this article. I think this is a notable and unique topic, and you can potentially tie in the social media impact in this section.

In regards to the "History" section, I believe that it is valuable, but it can be more succinct. The history part is a strong section because it looks at various projects by the CMHA from different angles. Some details, such as information about the first board of directors, the details of the drawing room meetings

Tone/balance:The tone is neutral for the most part, since this article mainly recounts the history of the CMHA, but some statements could be reworded to better fit Wikipedia guidelines. For example, in "Lieutenant Colonel Colin Russel soon gave the CNCMH an opportunity to undertake an important project", "important project" can be seen as biased.

Sources:More sources are needed, and adding more content will hopefully help make this section more robust.

Organization:Consider dividing the history section into formation, soldiers, and schools (and any other distinctions you see fit). This will make the page easier to read.

Media:Pictures of the founders or of the logo can contribute to this page.

Overall, I think this is a great start to the page, and I hope this feedback is helpful! Go-editors (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback! I agree with your point about the lead; it is indeed too short and can be expanded upon once the article's details are ironed out. My team hopes to include the most important takeaways of the article in a concise yet informative lead section.
 * In terms of content, we are indeed planning on adding a 'Program' section, which will provide an overview of all the notable programs and partners at CMHA. An example of a partner Peer Support Canada, an organization which specializes in connecting certified people who have experienced and beaten mental health issues with current sufferers. We can also use this section to relate this article to our class topic, #BellLetsTalk, thanks!
 * For "history", we will follow through with your comment and focus on making the section concise. Details such as the outline of the room meetings are certainly not as important as other aspects of CMHA.
 * Looking at sources, we hope to cite every critical outside detail with a reputable source. This will hopefully remove the 'need additional citation flag' that Wikipedia has put on the article. We will also make sure to source every additional fact/detail added. Thanks!
 * I also think the article can benefit from better organization. The history section will be subdivided into sections including formation and schools as you mentioned. In terms of the rest of the article, we plan on having the following sections: Programs, Partners, Critiques, Impact on Society, Public Policy
 * Last but not least, we plan to add pictures and visualizations as you mentioned in your media critique. Our team realizes that visualizations are a very effective way of increasing the readers’ understanding of the subject matter and hope to add media such as a timeline of the most important events, their website/services layout, organization logo, founders, or their association hierarchy. Once again, thank you very much for your comment.
 * Parouz (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Review 5

The introduction can be further elaborated on. Though the intro explains clearly what the main focus is, it would be useful to talk more about the context behind it before jumping straight into the history. Also, more sections should be added, or at least distinguished, in this article. The main issue is that there are few delineations between the history and explaining the association's functions. Adding in more sections such as, "Transition to today," "country-wide recognition," "tangible effects to the public," and more would surely give more depth to the article. The article also would need more sources to back up its claims. NatalieRH (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with your suggestions. Giving more context on the CMHA in the services they provide, how many employees they have, how they operate, and their goals would add great value to the article and improve the reading experience. I also agree with your comment on how there is no detail in what the association does today. The sections you suggested as well as impacts and current programs would be greatly beneficial. Also, finding more resources will be important. We will do our best to find independent sources that explain the CMHA's accomplishments, services, and shortcomings.Rpaylor (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)