User talk:Mdarrow18/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Social Work
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Yes, everything that I read was relevant to the article. It all flowed well, was very descriptive, and went into great detail. Nothing really distracted me, the blue words were the words that were unknown to me. With that, I was still able to find more information with my unknown words.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

All of the information used is still up to date, there are some sources that are listed from 1980's, but all the information I read is still relevant today. Since technology is always growing, we could add more to the technology portion of the text. Otherwise, everything else sounded good to me and had lots of description.

What else could be improved?

The only other thing I could think of to be added to this article would be more examples of models and theories used within social work practices. You can never have too many examples.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

Yes, this article is very neutral. No claims appear heavily biased towards any position.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Again, the technology is the only viewpoint I see underrepresented. As for the overrepresented, I would say nothing is, they are all explained greatly, but don't overemphasize anything.

''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

Yes, the links do work. The sources do also support the claims in the articles.

'''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?'''

Yes, each fact is referenced with an appropriate and reliable reference. The information comes from some links on different pages and some even pop up on the screen on the same page. None that I looked at were biased.

What kind of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

From what I found is that there isn't much talking going on about this subject.

'''How is this article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' Even after I searched from the ratings I couldn't find anything. It is indeed also a part of a Wikiproject.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It goes more into depth about the actual topic, plus, it more critical and harder to find actual information.

Mdarrow18 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Madison Darrow

2/13/19 Plan to Contribute
As I look at the Self-Destructive Behavior Page I see there isn't a lot written in the causes section, so one thing I would like to do is take a deeper look into the causes and see if I can further elaborate on that. If possible even, I would like to dig into different types of self-destructive behavior and further elaborate on eating disorders or substance abuse. Finally, I would like to go into further depth to describe self-destructive behavior. There isn't a lot of current information on it, so I hope I can find reliable information.

'On the Talk Page It was brought up how someone recommends that we should explain how self-destructive behavior can intentionally ruin one's life in some way or form. I don't know if I agree with this, a person with a bad personal experience with one who has a self-destructive behavior could have misunderstood the concept.

'''Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Are some areas under- or over-developed?''' What I've read so far, all of the content is related to the topic. Most areas are underdeveloped.

Is it written neutrally? Yes, this article is written neutrally. However, in the talk page it wasn't

'''Does each claim have a citation? Are the citations reliable?''' No, none of the forms have a citation. The 5 citations I see are reliable.

Possible Sources?

https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/9153/self-destructive-behavior/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8eAA1WPFyk

https://study.com/academy/lesson/self-destructive-behavior-signs-causes-effects.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1957928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdarrow18 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Mdarrow18 (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Madison Darrow

Everything in the article relates to the topic and there is a lot of good content that is worth the read. The dates in this article only go back to 2018, so it is really up to date. The only thing I could see that would need improvement is the amount of content on one article. It could have been summed up in a better manner than what it is. This topic could be very bias depending on which side of the issue you are on, but the person who wrote this kept it neutral. Most of the references come straight from online PDF'S, meaning that the information provided is accurate. The links provided below the article do work and they send you to websites that are very reliable. I don't see any talking going on behind the scenes of this article. The article is rated a B in all categories.Mdarrow18 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Abby Swope

Madison, this is great! --Dr AB Swan (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography Notes
People with self-destructive behavior aren't aware of healthy coping mechanisms, so they tend to be more violent, usually, this is an emotional response to a bad past life or memory.

Mdarrow18 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Madison Darrow

Linking Accounts
OBJECTIVE:

Clinical reports suggest that many adults who engage in self-destructive behavior have childhood histories of trauma and disrupted parental care. This study explored the relations between childhood trauma, disrupted attachment, and self-destruction, using both historical and prospective data.

METHOD:

Seventy-four subjects with personality disorders or bipolar II disorder were followed for an average of 4 years and monitored for self-destructive behavior such as suicide attempts, self-injury, and eating disorders. These behaviors were then correlated with independently obtained self-reports of childhood trauma, disruptions of parental care, and dissociative phenomena.

RESULTS:

Histories of childhood sexual and physical abuse were highly significant predictors of self-cutting and suicide attempts. During follow-up, the subjects with the most severe histories of separation and neglect and those with past sexual abuse continued being self-destructive. The nature of the trauma and the subjects' age at the time of the trauma affected the character and the severity of the self-destructive behavior. Cutting was also specifically related to dissociation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Childhood trauma contributes to the initiation of self-destructive behavior, but lack of secure attachments helps maintain it. Patients who repetitively attempt suicide or engage in chronic self-cutting are prone to react to current stresses as a return of childhood trauma, neglect, and abandonment. Experiences related to interpersonal safety, anger, and emotional needs may precipitate dissociative episodes and self-destructive behavior. copied from []pubmed.gov

Adults who struggle with self destructive behavior usually have experienced childhood trauma which causes them to act out in such an aggressive manner.

Mdarrow18 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Madison Darrow Mdarrow18 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Abby Swope User:Abbyswope1(Wiki Ed)/sandbox

Stuff To Put in the Article
Causes

Throughout ones life who has experience self-destructive behavior, it is usually formed through childhood trauma, a use of coping mechanism, and pleasure turning into addiction. Childhood trauma, such as abuse or neglect, can heavily impact someone making them develop with psycological issues that can lead to bigger problems. This is categorized as self-destructive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdarrow18 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)