User:Tannhauser Gate 42/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Practice Editing Here (Nov 23rd in-class Wiki session work)

 * This is a place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button).
 * Specific Phobia

Assignment # 3: Wikipedia Page Improvement Plan (Individual Assignment)

 * Note: You will be emailing your assignment # 3 directly to your tutor, however, please paste a version here that excludes your personal information. This will allow us to support your efforts on Wikipedia prior to editing "live" in the article.
 * Proposed change: updated definition and citation
 * My assigned “Specific Phobia” section is the introductory paragraph, which includes the general definition. I will be replacing the following sentences:
 * “A specific phobia is any kind of anxiety disorder that amounts to an unreasonable or irrational fear related to exposure to specific objects or situations. As a result, the affected person tends to avoid contact with the objects or situations and, in severe cases, any mention or depiction of them. The fear can, in fact, be disabling to their daily lives.”
 * Updated definition is as follows:
 * “Specific phobia is an anxiety disorder, characterized by an unreasonable fear associated with a specific object or situation, avoidance of the object or situation, persistence of the fear, and significant distress or functional impairment associated with the fear.”
 * In addition to the updated definition, I will be replacing the current WebMD citation with the following:
 * Eaton WW, Bienvenu OJ, Miloyan B. Specific phobias. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;5(8):678–86.
 * Rationale for proposed change:
 * The original definition is poorly worded and does not align with the clinical definition of specific phobia. The author does not use a medical resource for reference. The definition is being updated to accurately reflect the specific phobia clinical diagnostic criteria, while still maintaining lay-person language. Currently, the first introduction paragraph includes a definition that cites an out of date and non-peer reviewed resource, WebMD. I am replacing the current citation with a recent and reputable secondary resource. This is a systematic review published in The Lancet Psychiatry in 2018 and contains an up-to-date medical definition that aligns with North American (DSM-5) and International definitions (WHO).
 * Controversy or varied opinions:
 * There are many resources that could be used to create the specific phobia definition. Our group wanted to ensure we were using a source that integrated the DSM-5 and international criteria, while being specific enough to differentiate specific phobia from other anxiety disorders. Some individuals may feel a medical text, or the DSM-5 may have been more appropriate. However, this secondary resource summarized multiple relevant medical articles and may be more recent than medical texts. WebMD may be viewed by some as an appropriate medical resource for lay-man terms definitions of clinical diagnoses. However, to ensure Wikipedia has the most recent and relevant information, using a peer-reviewed secondary resource is more appropriate. This will also increase public understanding of an appropriate medical resource for health information.
 * Critique of source:
 * This source is a systematic review and as such could be subject to a quality assessment. However, I used a definition that was a summary of current medical texts, as opposed to the results of the systematic review. If I was using this resource to cite types of treatment or epidemiology, I would do a more thorough quality assessment. It is a highly cited article and did not highlight any major limitations in its conclusions. The article made conservative conclusions due to the lack of evidence for certain treatment types and discussed future research. The article did mention some biases present in smaller studies on Specific Phobia. However, these biases do not apply to this systematic review due to its summary and critical analysis of study results.   The only foreseeable bias may be that two of the authors are North American researchers and may be inclined to focus on North American definitions. However, they did integrate and discuss international definitions and outline worldwide epidemiology. I don’t believe this is a source of major bias impacting the integrity of this resource.
 * Marking Rubric Assignment # 3 Due date: The assignment must be emailed to tutors and an anonymous version posted in your sandboxes (due) by 11:30pm December 4th, 2020. Your article talk page also has to be updated by this same due date.
 * Wikipedia Article Title: Specific phobia
 * Marking notes (this is shared with students and tutors)
 * This assignment is worth 10% of the course grade. Ideal student work shows the changes they are planning to make and provides a clear rationale, gives a short appraisal of the validity of the resource that they used as a reference, and identifies areas of nuance or controversy with the content and how they resolved this in their proposed changes. Please record your marks and any specific feedback to the below five questions:
 * Proposed Changes (2 marks): The planned 1-2 sentences are clear, written in simple language, free of jargon, and understandable to a 12-year-old (grade 8). Technical and medical terms are wiki-linked if they have not yet appeared in the article. “People-first” language is used and the word “patient” is avoided (i.e., “People with diabetes” rather than “diabetics”).
 * Rationale for proposed change (3 marks): Each of the new sentences (1-2) proposed for the article has been justified by the student. This justification includes why the change is necessary, where the information came from, and why the content they are adding or replacing is inadequate in its current form.
 * Area of controversy (if applicable) (1 mark): The student has shown areas of ambiguity or controversy for the proposed change and the position taken has been clearly justified. (note if there is no possible controversy or ambiguity, skip this section and add 1 mark to question 2 for a total grade of 10)
 * Critique of source (2 marks): The student has identified any validity issues or potential bias within the secondary source they have chosen to support their proposed change. The student’s written content demonstrates an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence they have identified. The student can speculate on the potential bias of their source and whether (and how) that might have affected their extracted information.
 * Article improvement (2 marks): The student has shared their proposed improvement on their article talk page. This entry is formatted according to the supplied template and the student has included the reference and exact improvement that they propose to make on Wikipedia.
 * Grade:            /10

What to post on the Wikipedia article talk page?

 * This will also be covered on Nov 23rd in class. Your group should use the below template to share an outline of your proposed improvements (including your new wording and citations). Article talk pages are not places to share your assignment answers. The Wikipedia community will be more interested in viewing your exact article improvement suggestions including where you plan to improve the article (which section), what wording you suggest, and the exact citation (Note: all citations must meet WP:MEDRS)
 * You will not be able to paste citations directly from your sandbox to talk pages (unless you are interested in editing/learning Wiki-code in the "source editing" mode). We suggest re-adding your citations on the talk page manually (using the cite button and populating the citation by pasting in the DOI, website, or PMID). You will have to repeat this process yet again when you edit the actual article live.
 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2020/Talk Page Template