User talk:Cmjohnson5/sandbox

Problem Issues with Media Psychology: I think that the article is very limited and confusing. The article first mentions that is behavioral and popular then starts to discuss eye movement. References: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzgxODE4X19BTg2?sid=ca89882c-404d-448e-baec-34fdbd95caab@sessionmgr110&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2015.1011341 ( I am not sure how helpful this would be but it is interesting to see a journal called, "Media Psychology" http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/15213269.2015.1030083 (This also from the journal but addresses the role media plays in psychology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmjohnson5 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Cmjohnson5 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at picking out our articles for our references portion and I found 2 that I liked. http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2015.1011341, http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2010.547833, and there is also a journal based on media psychology which I have been reading through the last few days. It has so much information about all of the sub fields of media psych. One main problem is that it is so brief and you don't get any background information to why this is relevent or important. Kjyrstenolson (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

James: What would be the best part to start within this article? Would you like more background information and who are the leading people in this field? Kjyrstenolson (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Council: What exactly are looking for with e-mailing APA? Are you looking for specific format such as APA layout within the article or will they be helping us with "Media Psychology" specifically? Cmjohnson5 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New References

New References for "Media Psychology" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmjohnson5 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 4

For Corin and Kjyrsten: First of all, you should follow the instructions for this and future assignments. You were supposed to do the assignment in Corin's sandbox, not the sandbox Talk page. Second, even though my user name is James Council, please address me as Dr. Council in your comments.

It looks like you jumped the gun on the next assignment. I will be updating that one this week.

For Corin: For this and future assignments, please list references properly. See WP:CQR and the brochure Editing Wikipedia that I handed out in class for instructions. If you are editing in the sandbox using the visual editor, there is a drop down textbox that makes citations easy. Regarding emailing APA, what I mean is that there is a division of Media Psychology in APA. I'm sure if you contact someone in the division, they could point you towards some good material. Here is a url you can link to: http://www.apa.org/about/division/div46.aspx . Note that there is a link on this page to the division web page, which will have more information.

For Kjyrsten: Again, don't copy in urls for references. The links don't work. See my comment to Corin, above. To start the article, write a good Lead section. (See the Editing Wikipedia brochure. Also follow this link: WP:lead )

J.R. Council (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5

Nice start Group 3, but you've still got some work ahead of you.

1. You need to do some research on your topic so you can fill out the outline and be ready to write leads for the next assignment.
2. Figure out how to do reference citations. Using the drop down menu for the visual editor is pretty easy. Try it and let me know if you have any questions.

J.R. Council (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on Assignment 6

Kjyrsten: I like that you are trying to look for a lot of detail. Take out the question before your lead of why we need media psychology. The tone of your lead is very persuasive. Remember to keep it neutral on Wikipedia. The lead should be brief and consist of the main definition and give the reader a heads up of what is to come in the main article. Your lead is quite lengthy right now. Seems like much of what you are including in your lead would be more appropriate in the main article.

Corin: I like that you are looking ahead to different parts of media psychology. Try to focus more on the actual definition and main aspects of media psychology in the lead. Here we are setting the reader up for what is ahead. The information you provided seems like it may be more appropriate in the main body of the article, especially the inclusion of the table.

For both: The title of the article should be bold in the first part of the lead. Spend some quality time reviewing the formatting and requirements for lead sections on Wikipedia to help develop your lead. Check for grammar and typos. Maybe go back to your references to see if you can nail down a definition of media psychology and a few other main facts to include in the lead. Thanks for providing some feedback to one another. Samantha.myhre (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

From Dr. Council: I agree with Sam's comments. You need to read the instructions for the assignment carefully, as well as read the linked material and brochures about how to write a lead section. What you've done here indicates that you don't get what a lead section is supposed to be. If you need help, I will be happy to talk to you. J.R. Council (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 7

Hello Group 3. In general, your article is shaping up well. However, it has a long way to go before it can go into the Wikipedia main article space. I can see from the history of the article that you really didn't start working on it until the day it was due. Please don't do this for the next assignments - give yourselves time to do a good job.

Below, I list the problems that need to be fixed:

1. Sloppy writing and fact checking. You need to proofread carefully. There are many typos and writing is choppy.
2. References. You need to do proper reference citations. I have linked a good article on referencing Wikipedia in the Blackboard announcements and Wikipedia resources page.

Comments on specific sections:

1. Lead: This is good. Just put it together so it flows. Proofread.
2. Main theories: Generally good. Proofread. Fix references. Use proper citations. Don't use numbered list for ADT. Just summarize main points of theory in the text.
3. History: This is poorly organized, incomplete, and inaccurate. If you're going to have an early history section, there needs to be a section on recent history. Proofread and use proper reference citations.

Orson Well's broadcast was in 1938. World War II did not start until 1939, and the US did not enter the war until 1941.

4. Influential people. This section should be titled "Major Contributions." Use parallel construction for each section. Biographical information not necessary - just link to that person's Wikipedia article. Just stick to what those people contributed to media psychology. Put into chronological order and proofread!

J.R. Council (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Assignment 8 decision

Hello Group 3. Your article is better, but I cannot approve moving it to the Wikipedia main article. If you would like to continue working on it, I can meet with you to explain the problems. J.R. Council (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Feedback

I realize that this isn't complete, but I wanted to mention a few things to keep in mind while developing this

• Tone is important. "Why we need media psychologists" isn't the right way to approach this (since Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to advance an argument or advocate for an idea); instead, you should approach this by documenting the role of media psychology. It will deal with mostly the same information, but in a way that's appropriate to an encyclopaedia article.
• Remember that Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia and that it shouldn't include "how to" information. So if you want to talk about what it takes to become one, make sure that it's clear that you're talking about the US. Even better, try to figure out what it takes in other countries. Don't think about what a degree with "allow", but you might want to address different roles that might require a Masters or PhD. Rather than saying "A doctorate will allow individuals to ... earn a higher salary" you could cite average earnings (BLS figures, or something from a professional society, if they exist) with different qualifications. Again, keep in mind that when you talk about things in the US, make sure that you say this. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional feedback

Looks good - you really improved it a lot. A few things though:

• The History section has only one reference. Was the the sole source for the section? (I just want to make sure.) The last statement in that section appears to be unsourced - if it is, I'd say leave it out. It doesn't add a whole lot to the article anyway. If you can find a source, say something more specific: "as been increasingly popular over the past decade" gives not sense of how much and it doesn't say what "increasingly popular" means. Has there been an increase in applications into PhD programs, an increase in the number of people enrolled in/graduating from these programs? And instead of saying "the past decade" specify a time period. Wikipedia is about to turn 15; back then "the past decade" meant the 90s. Soon it will mean the 2010s.
• I made a few fixes to the Theories section. Headers aren't supposed to be capitalized beyond the first word (except for proper nouns). Similarly, titles in the text shouldn't be capitalized unless they're proper nouns. Link to theories if you can find them - I linked the first one, but I wasn't sure about the other two. Stimulation theory has a problem - the reference isn't real, it's just a ^[3], probably because someone copied text when they should have copied the wikicode. That's important to fix because reference #3 is going to change as the article develops. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to publish!

Please follow Ian's feedback above. Since I was late forwarding your link to Ian, feel free to take extra time, but please get things done over the weekend. Congratulations! J.R. Council (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)