User talk:Treyler42/sandbox

For Connor: If you can find useful material, then it's worth adding to the article. I don't see minor depressive disorder listed in DSM-IV. The current article lists it as an example of a Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. If you can differentiate this from dysthymic disorder, that would be useful. J.R. Council (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) For Trey: Any published, peer-reviewed paper is fine. Disregard what Wikipedia says about primary sources. The term has a different meaning in psychology. A history section would be very useful. J.R. Council (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) For Teddy: It's not always possible to conform to the guidelines. Just do your best to generate a well-balanced and informative article. Linking back and forth to other articles is very important. It makes Wikipedia more informative, and increases the chance that people will read your work.J.R. Council (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC) For Calla: See my comments above. I think it will be important to make a distinction between minor depressive disorder and dysthymia. The term does seem to be in use. If it has more historical than current importance, focus more on history, and link to the dysthymia as the current diagnostic term. J.R. Council (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5
First, some general comments. You've done a nice job of organizing your tasks and finding material. As you are developing your article, be sure to properly format your article for Wikipedia. You will need to do this eventually, and might as well start now. Comments on specific sections:
 * 1) To-do list: Looks good. Appropriate level of detail for now - you'll be adding more. Some of this material belongs in the outline.
 * 2) For instructions on illustrating Wikipedia, see the Wikipedia Resources page on Blackboard. For constructing an infobox,type help:infobox in the Wikipedia search box.
 * 3) Outline: It's good to see that your using a proper outline (more or less), like this:
 * I. Main topic
 * A. Subtopic
 * 1. Sub-sub topic,etc.

You've kind of done this. As you are developing your article, using a traditional outline format really helps to organize an article.
 * Although there is some material in the article already, it looks like there is a lot of potential for development. Be sure to fact-check the existing text.
 * 1) References: Reference citations are not formatted properly for Wikipedia. As you add text later, be sure to use the drop-down menu to attach reference citations in appropriate places and format references properly.
 * 2) Task commitments: I see that Trey and Connor have done this. There might be some others scattered around. It would be useful to consolidate who's doing what in this separate section. J.R. Council (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on Leads (Assignment 6)
For Trey: You could use more links to other wikipedia articles. However, it's a good, concise overview of the topic. I like the end where you said that even though the DSM-5 doesn't list minor depressive disorder, it is still relevant and treated by health professionals. Cdunn808 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Calla: I think we should use your part of the lead that talks about the history and then integrate that to show it has been and still is a very notable, important topic. Cdunn808 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Teddy: Your lead defines the topic well, but you might want to break up the first paragraph because it's kind of long. We can all also focus more on stating it's importance. Cdunn808 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

For Connor: Hey Connor, I really liked how you did the first paragraph, and when I was typing up mine it was hard not to copy yours because I thought it laid out the disorder very well. I thought the second paragraph seemed a little too in depth for the lead section since it really talks about what you outlined in the first paragraph. I think the third paragraph has a similar problem. If we use all this information in the lead, I am not sure what we will put in the definition area. That leads to my next point of sections. Currently, nothing in the lead section covers the history of the disorder besides it being listed in the DSMV-IV under the not specified area. I think because we compare it to other disorders so much, maybe our treatment coudl deal with how they are treated similarly and differently. Our lead section should also mention a little bit about the treatment though since we plan on including it the article. Likecalifornia (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For Calla: I thought over all you did a pretty great job. The information is all very relevant and to the point. The brevity of the lead may be its short coming. Possibly a tad more information could be included as well as maybe some formatting changes with the last two sentences. Like all the others I think it is a good start, but we will all have to come together to include information that covers the entire article. Theodore.Folk (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For Teddy: I thought you did a good job of including information that is interesting to the reader and establishes the importance of the article. However, the first few sentences are a bit jumbled and unclear. I think that this particular lead section can stand alone just fine, but there may be a few more things from the outline that could be added into the lead section. Good job! Treyler42 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Cdunn808 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 6
Please note: I had this titled incorrectly before as comments on Assignment 7. J.R. Council (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC) I think all of your leads are good, as well as the critiques. I think if you put all the critiques together, it gives some very good directions for where to take the lead section. In general, don't be too wordy or detailed, but on the other hand, you don't want brief and choppy either. Some specific suggestions:
 * When you are talking about current diagnostic criteria, stick to DSM-5.
 * Do mention some history about how the diagnosis has evolved through previous editions of the DSM.
 * Don't go into too much detail on differential diagnosis in the lead.
 * Briefly mention treatment options. Only Connor seems to have commented on each of the other group members. J.R. Council (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7
Nice work, Group 15! This topic is a bit of a tough call, since it does not appear in the current DSM-V. This makes your discussion in the lead a bit confusing. I suggest that you add the third paragraph to the end of the first paragraph. Also, add the last paragraph to the end of the second paragraph. Then you're good to go for developing the rest of the article. You should also: J.R. Council (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Add reference citations to the lead.
 * 2) Let me know who contributed what to this assignment, so I can figure individual grades.

Individual Contributions to Assignment 7
- I (Trey) pieced together the rough draft of the lead section Treyler42 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

- I (Connor) edited the lead section for grammar/clarity and introduced some citations Cdunn808 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

- Teddy took the comments Dr. Council made on our group topic and rearranged the paragraphs and fixed the lead section

- Calla put in new references that were not in the lead section before

Cdunn808 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 8
Hi Group 15. I will be reading this in detail when I get a chance this weekend. I've taken a quick look so I can give you some feedback before I leave today. Overall, looks great. I'd say you are just about ready to go. Certainly, very little additional work is needed. If you want to work on it before you hear back from me, just proofread and polish it up. J.R. Council (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Trey emailed me to say that this group considers the article ready to publish. I agree, except the last section, History, could use some more polishing up. For example, the phrase "being more mellow" is too informal. Instead, say the symptoms are milder or less pronounced. I also saw some typos, and it's a bit wordy. So work on this section a bit more. However, I'm forwarding this to Ian at Wiki Ed for final approval. Nice work, group! J.R. Council (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your article draft. I made a few minor stylistic fixes in keeping with Wikipedia's style manual; there isn't supposed to be a space between references and punctuation, straight quotes not curly quotes, and only proper nouns should be capitalized.

More important is the section on symptoms. The DSM people are apparently very protective of their copyrights, so it's always a good idea to include only the information, not the form in which it's presented. For that reason, it would be a good idea to rework your numbered points as normal paragraph text. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice work! After you make the change Ian recommends, you are good to go. Be sure to follow the instructions after Assignment 9 on moving an article to mainspace. Please email me when you are ready to publish. J.R. Council (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)