User talk:Cody.a.raeder/sandbox

Cody's questions
My questions are when do we actually have to put up the Wikipedia page and do literature reviews count the same as journal articles? J.R. Council (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Groups will be developing their articles in their sandboxes for the next couple of weeks.When you feel that the article is developed enough to publish, you should let one of the Wiki Ed volunteers listed on the course page know so they can take a look at it.
 * Lit reviews should carry more credibility with Wikipedia than journal articles. However, both are acceptable sources.

Toby's questions
Do you think that since we do not have as many resources as other topics that our credibility and the credibility of our article will be hurt? Will editors on Wikipedia accept so easily a new article being added to the cite?
 * Every article has to start somewhere. As long as you have a few credible sources to cite, that should be fine. See comment to Cody above: work with the Wiki Ed people and things should go smoothly. J.R. Council (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Evan's concerns and questions
I am mostly worried about getting this article published because with our lack of abundant research on the subject, there is of course more specifically a lack of secondary sources which is what Wikipedia prefers because secondary research is more stable.

My primary question is, if our page gets rejected, what will we do? Will we just pick a different topic? J.R. Council (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns above. Regarding your question, your group should be fine. I'm sure you will get your article published to Wikipedia. In any case, as long as you make a good faith effort, you will get credit for this assignment.

To-Do List
We need to decide how to format and layout our page. We could list each header and sub-headers we want to create, and then divide the the subjects between the three of us. We need to keep looking for more references. UtherWorthbillingtonsonville (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We also need to find out how to start a new article, unless either of you two already found out, but I'm clueless as to how we're doing that. We could also discuss how much of the history of DRT we would like to put in the article. Do we want it to be fairly in depth or focus more on what it currently is than where it came from. Tobyhaas92 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to Blackboard/Wikipedia resources for detailed instructions on how to start a new article. J.R. Council (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We need to integrate/link our article with other Wikipedia articles, which will increase the chance of it being seen as "relevant", and we need to get in contact with one of the Wikipedia editors, ensuring the posting goes smoothly. In response to what Toby said, I think we should begin by getting the basics down for the article, and can decide to go more in-depth later, depending on how it goes.Cody.a.raeder (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction
Deviance Regulation Theory (DRT) is the theory in which people choose to stray from social norms in socially attractive ways as well as avoiding socially unattractive behaviors that stray from social norms. This is all done to preserve a constructive private and public self-image.

DRT was first founded by Hart Blanton at the University of Albany in 2003.

Tobyhaas92 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is about all I have for now on the intro. I would still need to add more about the history of it and implementation.

Principle of Deviance Regulation
Deviance Regulation focuses on behaviors of people that deviate from the norm instead of following it. In social situations, in order to gain an identity that sticks with a person a decision should be made that deviates from normal behaviors but still has a generally positive view. However, this does not guarantee that the action will stay significant to the person performing it, it still needs to be important to them. Reference groups also matter in deciding whether to conform to the groups norms or to deviate. Overall the theory can lead to either seeking conformity or deviation as long as the user is avoiding negative social and self views. Tobyhaas92 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DRT Interventions
-Behavioral Modification -Intention-Action Gap -Uses of DRT interventions -Creativity Interventions -Alcohol Use interventions -Protective Behavioral Strategies -Other uses Cody.a.raeder (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

New References
Tobyhaas92 (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Cody.a.raeder (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

UtherWorthbillingtonsonville (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Example of using multiple citations of same reference:

Good start, but some things are missing
This is a good start, but I don't see where Cody contributed to the outline, or Evan added refs. Remember to sign your posts! Also, no one in the group made a statement of commitment to any of the tasks. J.R. Council (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Who Does What
As far as dividing up who does what portion of the article, I think we should all develop the part of the article that we created the outline for. For myself, this means doing the uses of a DRT intervention, while Toby and Evan would split up what the theory is and how it was developed. SOund like a plan?Cody.a.raeder (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the stuff Evan did for the outline is could actually just be transferred into the article itself, with a little embellishment perhaps. Also, we need someone to write the main introduction to the article, but I'm not sure whether we want to write that part last or if one of you two wants to do it now, any thoughts?Cody.a.raeder (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do the introduction, I'll start working on it now to just get an idea for it. My thoughts on it would include a brief definition of DRT followed by a brief history of it, like where it began with who started it, when, etc. and then end the intro with how DRT is implemented with people. Tobyhaas92 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I am starting to have time to work on this. Today I was able to find out how to use the same reference multiple times without it causing additional citations. I left an example above on this page. I went ahead and fixed all the references on the user page, please make sure I didn't mess up your sources by mixing them around. I'm sure they're all still good but when it comes to references, I think it's better safe than sorry.

Additionally, our references aren't listed in a consistent format. I can fix this if you guys would like, I just didn't want to step on any toes by interfering before asking.

I would like to apologize for being so negligent on this project. I will be finishing assignment 8 Monday night. I am wondering though, just to clear things up: I am going to be covering the main article sections "Theory", "Boundary Conditions", and "Future research/challenges". What else should I be working on? UtherWorthbillingtonsonville (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobi, I just wanted to double check. You are covering the Blanton 2003 article all the way down to Theory, correct? Also, I made a new heading "Theory" on the main page, you can put your content under my heading if you'd like or make a new one. I think it may make sense for some of our content to be merged at some point, but we can move stuff around after we get it all input.

Also, on the user page, I deleted all the sources from the top of the page (because we would need to delete them at some point and since that's where the sources were first cited, once we deleted them we would lose the sources unless we transferred the original citation down to the next spot) except for the Zabelina source because it hadn't been used yet. So please don't delete the Zabelina source until we have it listed in another location. UtherWorthbillingtonsonville (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Scoring explanation
Cody has made a good comment on the Talk page (1 point), and a substantial contribution to the article (5 points). Nice start, Cody! J.R. Council (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7
Cody has done some substantial edits to the article being developed in the sandbox, and it is off to a good start. Toby has added to the outline and to-do list, and I can't see where Evan has done anything at all. There is still a lot of potential for filling in the outline and improving this article. This is an important topic, and it is definitely worth adding this article to Wikipedia. Toby and Evan - please start adding content to the main article for Assignment 8. J.R. Council (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking good!
This article has really come along. I need to read it more carefully, and will get back with details for improvement, but I think its basically ready to move to the main article space. Since this will be a new article, it would be eligible for special recognition. We'll work with the Wiki Ed expert on this. Nice work!J.R. Council (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are some things you can do to polish up the article:

I think that if you make these final tweaks to your article, it is ready to go. Email me when you are ready for Ian Ramjohn at Wiki Ed to look it over. J.R. Council (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Write a better introductory paragraph so that it gives a good overview of the article. Wikipedia intro paras appear in Google searches, so they are important. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
 * 2) Proofread carefully. I've noticed some places where the wording is not quite right.

What's left to do
Really, the main thing that is holding this up for publication is the Intro. Someone besides Toby should proofread this, correct grammar, and add details so it provides a proper overview of the article. Do this, and I'll send the link to Ian. J.R. Council (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the fluff that was at the beginning and have proof read the page and made some edits. Cody, I didn't change much at all on your section, I mainly just hyphenated all instances of prevention-focus and promotion-focus. Dr. Council, I still have some things I'm going to add to my section but I think we're mostly ready to submit except for our introduction. As you said, the introduction content is very important and right now our introduction is lackluster and incomplete. I don't have time right now to fix the introduction but I am sure I would be able to take care of it by Wednesday next week by the latest. Should we submit with our page in it's current state? UtherWorthbillingtonsonville (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft article. I made a few minor fixes (which I have explaining in my edit summaries). A few things that need doing before you move the article into mainspace
 * You need to make sure that every statement in the article is supported by a citation. The entire Boundary conditions section has only a single reference, and that is only attached to the first sentence. It is important that everything be supported by citations.
 * This looks good now. There may only be that one article regarding boundary conditions. I see you've cited it in several places in this section.J.R. Council (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Several of your references are incomplete. Only the first one is a complete citation, with DOI (DOIs are helpful, even if they aren't strictly speaking necessary). References 2, 3 and 4 lack publication years.
 * Done! J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This still needs to be fixed.J.R. Council (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to look into fixing those references but clicking on 'edit' for the references doesn't seem to really get me anywhere. What should I do to start fixing them? Tobyhaas92 (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you tried "edit source" to go straight to the markup language? That should allow you to insert the additional information easily. J.R. Council (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Examples - like the 400-lb powerlifting in the gym - aren't usual for encyclopaedia articles. Can you explain the concept without them?
 * I see this has been fixed. (Although I kind of liked that example.)J.R. Council (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I changed your introduction into a Lead section, per WP:LEAD, but it could use some expansion. The lead section should be a brief summary of the main points of the article.
 * I changed some of the wording, but did not add anything. I agree a little more content would be good.J.R. Council (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more to the introduction, let me know what you think. Tobyhaas92 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good!J.R. Council (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article lacks wikilinks. Adding links to other articles helps to better integrate your article into the encyclopedia. They help readers by allowing them to learn more about topics they may not be familiar with.
 * Adding some links would be good, and not too difficult.J.R. Council (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Hello Group 1, I left feedback last week on your progress in making the changes Ian suggested. I don't see many additional changes, so you still have a little bit to go before moving the article to mainspace. Please email me after you make the final changes, so I can give the go-ahead to publish. Nice work on this! J.R. Council (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian - can you help this group with some tips for fast-tracking a new article?J.R. Council (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Looks like you've taken care of the final details. Please read the instructions from Ian that I've posted on Blackboard, and start moving this to the main article space. Nice job everyone - congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)