User talk:Ryancc0nrad/sandbox

Hi Ryan!

I just looked over your draft for compulsive decluttering, and you're adding some strong material here! Your connection of this to obsessive-compulsive disorder alone strengthens the article significantly.

My biggest suggestions as you continue working on this article are: --consider how you want to "section" it. What sub-headings make the most sense for this topic? (I might consider headings like "History", "Symptoms", and "Treatment" if those are areas you're able to find sources discussing) --be careful to just provide the information rather than analysis (example: the end of the final sentence of your first paragraph. That "...which deepens the meaning at the surface" phrasing moves into analyzing the information rather than just presenting it.) --cite your sources in text where you are using information you found in those sources (rather than just all together at the end of the text)

I hope this helps a little as you continue your work on this article, and I look forward to seeing the next version of it! Nicoleccc (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Sarah Kimes
Hi, When reading your draft I think you are off to a good start, however, some bais is evident to me and I am listing them below:

in an attempt to "clean up" what one with the disorder may think is cluttered. You might want to cite where you found the Clean up quote or remove it if it is a personal thought/perspective on the potential thoughts of those with the disorder as it could be considered bias.

Similarly, another part of the draft states: think that any items around them are cluttering or disrupting their every day lives. Throwing these items away gives them satisfaction, and gives them the idea that they are in control of their lives. Which should also be rewritten or cited because it can sound like-to me; that your perspective is (the above) not a fact based, recorded perspective of those with the disorder.

I feel that the entire final paragraph of your draft should be reexamined because it sounds like you are using your own opinion(Bias) to write it without factual data to back it up.

Sarahkimes (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft feedback, round 2
Hi Ryan! I'm looking over your article draft again, and your additions are really good. A few notes/observations/suggestions as you finish up your work on the article:
 * linking to other Wikipedia articles. Obsessive-compulsive disorder and compulsive hoarding are two examples of good related Wikipedia articles to link to within your article.
 * sourcing in-text. Any sentence where you are stating something as fact will likely have a source link at the end of it (I wonder, for example, if some of the examples in your "effects" section came from sources)
 * it might be worth making a separate "Treatment" section--even though there is no specific treatment for this condition at this time, is it approached the same way a more general OCD diagnosis would be? (you can look on the obsessive-compulsive disorder Wikipedia page to see how the authors of that page handled the treatment component)
 * the connection/categorization within OCD is an important part of the lead paragraph but then isn't referenced again in the article. This isn't a big deal, but *if* there is a convenient reconnection/reminder of this being a diagnosis under the bigger OCD umbrella, that would help strengthen the connections between your lead and the later sections of the article.
 * there are just a few grammar/phrasing bumps--you might want to read the whole article aloud to help you catch these before finalizing your content move to the main article space

I hope this helps some! These are mostly small moves--you seem to have the big pieces pretty well in place at this point. Nicoleccc (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)