Talk:Canadian Mental Health Association

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 27 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D3032447367, Rpaylor, Parouz, Markowijaya. Peer reviewers: Jasdeep-SH, Go-editors, Natasha.Holdt, Adamash981, NatalieRH, EstabanMiranda, Stan1500.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

History section overhaul

Given that the history section looks to be copied verbatim from what is posted on the CMHA's website without any citations, it is in need of a serious overhaul. Condensing the section as well as adding citations should greatly improve the article. Rpaylor (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Additions/Improvements Suggestions

Given the importance of the Canadian Mental Health Association within Canada, I believe it is very important to strengthen the quality and content of this article. Below are some suggestions as to potential improvements: -Add Additional Subsections: Potential subsection ideas are: "Current CMHA Programs", "Current CMHA Status", "Partner Organizations of CMHA", "Impact on Canadian Society", "CMHA Team", etc. -Add Citations Where Necessary to Content Already Written

Also below are potential bibliography additions that are relevant to the above improvements: -https://peersupportcanada.ca/ -Crainford, Leonard. “The Canadian Mental Health Association.” Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne De Sante'e Publique, vol. 61, no. 5, 1970, pp. 417–422. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41984548. Accessed 25 Feb. 2020. -https://cmha.ca/partners -https://cmha.ca/about-cmha/national-staff

Please let me know if you agree or disagree with the above! D3032447367 (talk)

Agreed. I also think the article could use something like a critiques or short-fallings section to eliminate bias. The section could include ongoing mental health issues in Canada or past failures to push for legislation and increase funding. Also, I think the history section is far too long and needs to be condensed. The history section could be compressed to key events, and recent occurrences could be moved to more relevant sections. Rpaylor (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Additionally, we can also add a section in which we mentioned their fundraising efforts to show how they receive funding for their efforts of raising mental health awareness. Markowijaya (talk) 07:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Great ideas all around. I've also thought about some potential changes to the article that can improve the validity and readability.

Firstly, Wikipedia identifies ‘advertisement-like’ writing as a potential issue of the article. An article should not try to persuade the reader of the writer's opinion, and should remain as unbiased as possible. One way to achieve this is to change the wordage to remove personal perspectives, and to include a critiques section that counteracts CMHA’s good deeds.

Secondly, visualizations are a very effective way of increasing the readers’ understanding of the subject matter and as it stands, the article does not include any. A drawn out timeline of the most important events would compliment the ‘History’ section of the article very well. Other possible visualizations include CMHA’s headquarters, their website/services layout, or their association hierarchy. Pictures of events hosted by the association can also be very effective.

Lastly, one of the two sources listed under the article’s References links to an invalid page. This takes away from the validity of the article. The article should also reference new information about the topic in order to stay up to date. Finally, the following is a list of potential sources (Bibliography) that can improve the article:

• https://letstalk.bell.ca/en/taking-positive-action/3/canadian-mental-health-association
• https://peersupportcanada.ca/
• Crainford, Leonard. “The Canadian Mental Health Association.” Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne De Sante'e Publique, vol. 61, no. 5, 1970, pp. 417–422. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41984548. Accessed 25 Feb. 2020.
• https://cmha.ca/partners
• https://cmha.ca/about-cmha/national-staff
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4794956/
• https://sk.cmha.ca/news/canadian-mental-health-association-calls-new-legislation-bring-mental-health-balance-physical-health/
• https://cmha.ca/documents/cmha-position-on-medical-assistance-in-dying
• https://cmhapeeldufferin.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2012-2013-Governance-Policies-Updated-September-2013.pdf
• https://globalnews.ca/news/6589257/kingston-branch-cmha-closure/
• https://seattlethunderbirds.com/article/t-birds-and-crisis-connections-team-up-to-raise-awareness-of-mental-health-issues
• https://www.iheartradio.ca/ez-rock/ez-rock-penticton/news/canadian-mental-health-association-receives-generous-donation-1.10536359
• https://www.portageonline.com/local/cmha-central-cuts-ribbon-for-new-location

Parouz (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

The introduction on this article needs a lot of work. It could benefit from being a full paragraph summarizing the article. The history section would be more readable if it was grouped up into sections instead of just being a lot of facts. For instance, since there is a lot of information about the first meeting, that could be its own section. Also, there are only a few references. Perhaps a few more could be added. News articles could be a good place to start with this. Adamash981 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I agree with your suggestion that the introduction should be more encompassing of the whole article. Things like services provided and the purpose of the CMHA would be beneficial. I also agree with splitting up the history section. It would be much easier to read if it were sectioned up. Also, thank you for the suggestion on references. We will look into those sources to bring in more references. Rpaylor (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

Peer evaluation directed at the MoveMe group working on this article: I think the original article had very limited information overall since it mainly only focused on the organization’s history and the founder. Therefore, I think all the sections your group intends to add will make really helpful additions!

I noticed that your group wanted to make some edits to the history section. I thought I might suggest that when editing, to maybe be wary of some potential bias that might come through in the original writing. In a general sense, the article doesn’t seem extremely biased since a lot of it is just facts about the organization’s history. However, there were some parts here and there that I felt could still come off as biased to certain readers. For example, there’s a line in the original article that says “It proved very successful: he recruited an impressive list of potential members and donors.” I personally felt as though this might seem like the writer is pushing for an opinion that’s in favor of the success of Hincks. It classified his efforts as “successful” and “impressive”, but readers might better be served if these phrases were replaced with actual facts/statistics about who these members are or how many of them exist.

The section you wrote about “Programs” is really interesting to me, especially because I think it would be really helpful for readers to have this section in the article. However, I personally would love to know more about the specifics of the programs. I believe you mentioned Peer Support Canada, Not Myself Today, and Carryit. You provided a brief description on what these programs are, but as a reader I was interested to know a little extra context to better understand these important initiatives that were started.

Additionally, I think the section on “Public Policy” that you intend on adding will be very informative. To me, this adds an element about explaining the effects and developments that have come from the organization. Since the original article only focused on the history, this new section will likely add value to the article by addressing a topic that hasn’t been mentioned at all yet. This new addition ultimately allows the article to capture not only the important past of the organization, but also the key events that followed its founding. Since this section is about listing and explaining policies, none of the writing comes across as biased. I find it to be very clear that you’re just trying to communicate the information to readers from a factual standpoint, not an opinion-based one.

In general, the original article is lacking in cited sources, but it’s obvious that your group has done a lot of research for your edits and will be contributing to this aspect that’s currently missing from the article. Overall it’s clear you guys were very thoughtful about how to make the article better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha.Holdt (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Natasha.Holdt: Thank you so much for your resourceful feedback! I definitely agree with you in terms of adding more sections to the article to form a better picture of the CMHA for the reader. To your first point, minimizing bias and using neutral language is certainly one of our team's main objectives moving forward. By using appropriate wordage that avoids taking a perspective, we hope to remove the article's 'written like an advertisement' flag, as mentioned by Wikipedia. In terms of the "Programs" section, I believe it is a great idea to provide an overview of the notable programs/partners instead of just including a name and a brief description. We will be sure to conduct more research on each program as we improve our article. Moving forward, I appreciate your positive comments regarding the "Public Policy" section. We certainly hope to paint a better picture of the organizations' effects on Canadian society without presenting inherit bias. Lastly, to your point about sources, we will make sure to add proper citation for the article, as well as any extra details/information included. Once again, thank you very much for your insightful feedback!

Parouz (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Evaluation

Positive Points

CONTENT: The article had a succinct and clear lead section. The added section on public policy makes reference to specific crises, such as the opioid crisis and the establishment of the National Health Human Resources Infrastructure Fund.

TONE: The article gives the impression of being impartial. To a certain extent, there is good coverage of facts in an unembellished manner. There is no concern about the CMHA presenting an excessively positive image of itself, bolstered by the addition of the “Critiques” section.

Areas of Improvement

BALANCE: The recommended deletion of the History section was a good idea because there is a lot of information which might not be necessary for the reader. Even with the deletions, this section remains significantly longer than the rest of the article, covering almost 100 years of history. There is a lot of information covered, often details that might not be necessary. For instance, the short historical note about the first meeting of the CMHA’s predecessor might not be essential. There can also be an extension to the new sections about “Critiques” and “Impact on Canadian society”.

NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVE: In terms of ensuring a neutral perspective, it is valuable to add the “Critiques” section. However, the information here is primarily from the CMHA itself. It would be valuable to consider external perspectives, such as other Canadian mental health groups. Similarly, the “impact on Canadian society” section draws from the CMHA without other independent sources to ensure a clear reflection of the various aspects of the topic.

SOURCES: Currently, the sources used are primarily written by CMHA National, as well as websites to show the different programs. There can be an improvement in the use of reliable sources, by including independent journal articles about the work of the CMHA. References would be extremely critical for the ‘Critiques” and “Impact on Canadian Society” sections, where it is important to avoid leaning to a single perspective.

Jasdeep-SH (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! We too think that diving into how the CMHA has played a role in various events will add great value to the article and give more context to what the association has done. As the article stands now, the tone needs some work. Editing things like you said about adding the critiques section will be beneficial, along with taking out specific verbiage such as "important" program. Regarding the balance of the article, we agree with your comments. The history section needs to be shortened and sectioned. I think we can still include the first CHMA meeting, but it shouldn't be more than one sentence. In terms of suggestions you offered on sources, those are valuable insights that we will act upon. There is lots of information through the CMHA's website and the websites of their partners, but in order to find more unbiased information, we will seek out references from independent groups or journalism.Rpaylor (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead: The lead is short, understandably because there is only one section so far. Once you add more information, you can expand on the lead to be more encompassing.

Content:I see that other peer reviews talk about a "Programs" section but I am not seeing it on my end... however, I agree that a "Programs" section would greatly add to this article. I think this is a notable and unique topic, and you can potentially tie in the social media impact in this section.  

In regards to the "History" section, I believe that it is valuable, but it can be more succinct. The history part is a strong section because it looks at various projects by the CMHA from different angles. Some details, such as information about the first board of directors, the details of the drawing room meetings   

Tone/balance:The tone is neutral for the most part, since this article mainly recounts the history of the CMHA, but some statements could be reworded to better fit Wikipedia guidelines. For example, in "Lieutenant Colonel Colin Russel soon gave the CNCMH an opportunity to undertake an important project", "important project" can be seen as biased.

Sources:More sources are needed, and adding more content will hopefully help make this section more robust.

Organization:Consider dividing the history section into formation, soldiers, and schools (and any other distinctions you see fit). This will make the page easier to read.

Media:Pictures of the founders or of the logo can contribute to this page.

Overall, I think this is a great start to the page, and I hope this feedback is helpful! Go-editors (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Go-editors: Thank you so much for your thoughtful feedback! I agree with your point about the lead; it is indeed too short and can be expanded upon once the article's details are ironed out. My team hopes to include the most important takeaways of the article in a concise yet informative lead section.

In terms of content, we are indeed planning on adding a 'Program' section, which will provide an overview of all the notable programs and partners at CMHA. An example of a partner Peer Support Canada, an organization which specializes in connecting certified people who have experienced and beaten mental health issues with current sufferers. We can also use this section to relate this article to our class topic, #BellLetsTalk, thanks!

For "history", we will follow through with your comment and focus on making the section concise. Details such as the outline of the room meetings are certainly not as important as other aspects of CMHA.

Looking at sources, we hope to cite every critical outside detail with a reputable source. This will hopefully remove the 'need additional citation flag' that Wikipedia has put on the article. We will also make sure to source every additional fact/detail added. Thanks!

I also think the article can benefit from better organization. The history section will be subdivided into sections including formation and schools as you mentioned. In terms of the rest of the article, we plan on having the following sections: Programs, Partners, Critiques, Impact on Society, Public Policy

Last but not least, we plan to add pictures and visualizations as you mentioned in your media critique. Our team realizes that visualizations are a very effective way of increasing the readers’ understanding of the subject matter and hope to add media such as a timeline of the most important events, their website/services layout, organization logo, founders, or their association hierarchy. Once again, thank you very much for your comment.

Parouz (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Review

The introduction can be further elaborated on. Though the intro explains clearly what the main focus is, it would be useful to talk more about the context behind it before jumping straight into the history. Also, more sections should be added, or at least distinguished, in this article. The main issue is that there are few delineations between the history and explaining the association's functions. Adding in more sections such as, "Transition to today," "country-wide recognition," "tangible effects to the public," and more would surely give more depth to the article. The article also would need more sources to back up its claims. NatalieRH (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I very much agree with your suggestions. Giving more context on the CMHA in the services they provide, how many employees they have, how they operate, and their goals would add great value to the article and improve the reading experience. I also agree with your comment on how there is no detail in what the association does today. The sections you suggested as well as impacts and current programs would be greatly beneficial. Also, finding more resources will be important. We will do our best to find independent sources that explain the CMHA's accomplishments, services, and shortcomings.Rpaylor (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Work place abuse.I work with a large company in Alberta for 20 years.the last two years of my employment were hell.they used me both physically and mentally.I hit rock bottom about a year ago and got help.I also put in a report to hr department.they say they done a investigation.saying no evidence was found.tried to reach out to higher management.they are ignoring me.my Dr says I need to get this off my plate to go forward with my mental health.any advice?

Need a path forward 96.44.109.255 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)