User:Pesanskym/sandbox

Article Evaluation -

The article only had one source, it was from the U.S. Grant office so I believe it is reliable but I feel as if they should have used more then one source. Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. The information is descriptive but straight to the point, there is no added fluff. The article does not have any view points about if it is a good technique or not it is just the fact s about what the technique is. I think they should add in some view points to show the pros and cons. The citation links do work and the information is not taken directly but rather worded from the abstract into their own words. There is nothing that I can see in the talk page on this article. It is a part of WikiProject Psychology.

Reputation Article Day 1 -

This article is lacking a lot of citations and verification that the material came from reputable sources. There are several claims that are missing citation throughout the article. There are certain sections of the article that are written in a biased, opinionated tone, which needs fixing. In other sections of the article, the tone does not match what Wikipedia would like to see.

Exercise 4 -

Online reputation is very important in the world of physicians. Poor online reputation can lead to clients choosing other physicians. There are a few things one could do to see what their online reputation is. Some of the possible things one can do is search yourself online, respond to reviews, build branding through social media, influence your social name, and seeking patient feedback.