User:MarciWilson/sandbox

This is a user sandbox of MarciWilson. You can use it for testing or practicing edits.
This is not the place where you work on your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course.
Visit your Dashboard course page and follow the links for your assigned article in the My Articles section.

Get Help

Peer-Review Articles for Week 8-9

For these two weeks I have been working on peer-reviewing articles. Below are the answers to the peer-review questions for each article that I reviewed. These can also be found on the articles' talk page.

Article 1 - Pseudodementia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudodementia

Follow Their Lead:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, I feel like I understand the importance of the topic based on the lead
Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? I think the lead touches on the important information, however, treatment and history are not mentioned in the lead, which are important topics of this article
Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Like I mentioned, there is no reference to treatment or history in the lead. There seems to be a significant amount of information on what the definition of Pseudodementia is.

Clear Structure:

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I think it would make more sense to start with the “History” section, and then go into the “Pseudodementia vs Dementia”, then “Treatment” and finishing up with “Presentation and Differential”.

A Balancing Act:

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? I think that each section is an appropriate length. The “Presentation and Differential” section could be split and included in the “History” and “Treatment” sections of the article. I believe that all of the sections are on-topic and necessary.
Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No.
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, I felt that this article did a good job of being unbiased.

Neutral Content:

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, again the article was unbiased.
Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." I did not come across any words/phrases that signified bias.
Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." I did not come across anything in the article that would indicate claims on behalf of unnamed groups/people.
Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article was mostly negative, focusing on the disorder, which makes sense. I didn’t read about a “bright side”.

Reliable sources:

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The article had reliable sources referenced throughout.
Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. There seemed to be a good variety of sources used throughout the article.
Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! There were not any statements that I found that needed to be sourced, in my opinion.

Peer Review Letter - Pseudodementia

Hello! I have completed a Peer Review Letter for my classmates in Cognitive Psychology at UVU. Here are my thoughts: The article had a great lead section which correlated wtih the rest of the content in the article. I do want to suggest some changes. First is to reorganize the different sections in the article to make more sense. Starting with the "History" section, then going into "Pseudodementia vs Dementia" then "Treatment" and finishing up with "Presentation and Differential". I think this would help with the overall flow of the article. I also think that a brief statement about treatment should be mentioned in the lead, since it is a topic covered in the article. Lastly, I do think it would be nice to have more content in the "Treatment" section like what treatments have been used in the past, what treatments are currently being used, how treatments affect patients, etc. This section did cover some of these questions, however, it was very brief. Out of all of these suggestions, I think the most important one would be the reorganization of the entire article. This article had a well-written lead section as well as different, applicable content areas.

Article 2 - Social Cognition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cognition

Follow Their Lead:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, I thought the lead did a good job of discussing the importance of the topic.
Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? I thought the lead reflected a lot of the information that was found in the article itself, however, I didn’t see any mention to social schemas.
Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? I would say that the lead did a good job balancing the different topics it mentioned. Again, I didn’t see any mention of social schemas

Clear Structure:

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I thought the order of the information was perfect. I like how it started with the historical development and then went into the social schemas (which is a big portion of the article).

A Balancing Act:

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? I think every section of the article is on-topic and necessary. Each section was an appropriate length.
Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, I do not think the article draws any conclusions or tried to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. The article does have a lot of information on the social schema theory. I do think that sections could be added to go into attribution theory and stereotypes.

Neutral Content:

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? The article seems to lean towards the social schema theory, since that is what a lot of the content is about. I would like to see information on other theories (i.e. attribution theory).
Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." I did not see any claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people.
Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. I believe the article remained neutral.

Reliable sources:

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? There are portions of the article that need to have source(s) after it. For example, the first paragraph in the “Social Schemas” section does not include any sources, however, in my opinion, there needs to be something. There are also a lot of areas that say “citation needed” -- so I am sure the group is aware that they need to add sources to those specific areas.
Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, it looks like a lot of different references were used throughout the article.
Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! Yes, I mentioned one example above. I would recommend the team comb through the article carefully to find all of statements that need a source.

Peer Review Letter - Social Cognition

Hello! I have completed a Peer Review Letter for my classmates in Cognitive Psychology at UVU. Here are my thoughts: The article did a good job of explaining schemas as well as expanding upon cultural differences. I would suggest adding sources to areas that are missing sources, and also adding information about other theories, like the attribution theory that was mentioned in the historical development section. The majority of this article talks about the social schema theory, however, there is no information on attribution or stereotypes. The more important thing that should be reviewed would be the sources. Making sure that every area of the article has a source if it needs it. There are also citations that have been created that just say "citation needed", instead of an actual source. I am sure that whoever it working on this article is aware of that.

Article 3 - Emotion Classification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_classification

Follow Their Lead:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Although the lead was very brief, it did mention the information found in the rest of the article.
Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, I thought it did a good job of highlighting what was going to be in the article.

Clear Structure:

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The sections seemed to be organized well, as outlined in the lead.

A Balancing Act:

Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Every section seemed fitting for this topic/article. There wasn’t any unnecessary information.
Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I did not notice any significant viewpoints missing/left out. It reflected all perspectives very well.
Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? I did not pick up on the article trying to convince the reader to accept one view over the other. It was unbiased.

Neutral Content:

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

Reliable sources:

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? All of the references that are in the article are good sources. I did not see any bad sources.
Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. The article seemed to do a good job of using a variety of different sources.
Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! I did not pick up on any statements/sections of the article that was missing a source.

Peer Review Letter - Emotion Classification

Hello! I have completed a Peer Review Letter for my classmates in Cognitive Psychology at UVU. Here are my thoughts: This article did a great job of following the lead's outline. It was easy to follow along with as a reader and understand the two different viewpoints in the lead paragraph. I would suggest that the author(s) try to incorporate pictures to try and explain the different models of emotions that were written in the article. I think it would be helpful to see the different models being portrayed via picture (i.e. Ekman's basic emotions). Although the lead was very brief, I do think it covered all of the information. The author(s) could try to "beef" it up, however, if it was left alone I think it would get the job done. I like how the article was very organized. An article I am working on (Motivated Reasoning) needs help in the organization department.

Individual Assignment for Week 6 -- Sources for Article

1. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947–1958. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947 (Links to an external site.)

2. Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment & Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=90209836&site=eds-live (Links to an external site.)

3. Sujata Ghosh, Ben Meijering, & Rineke Verbrugge. (2014). Strategic Reasoning: Building Cognitive Models from Logical Formulas. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 23(1), 1. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.24462281&site=eds-live

4. Ramirez-Arellano, A., Bory-Reyes, J., & Hernández-Simón, L. M. (2019). Emotions, Motivation, Cognitive–Metacognitive Strategies, and Behavior as Predictors of Learning Performance in Blended Learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(2), 491–512. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1177/0735633117753935

5. Manganelli, S., Cavicchiolo, E., Mallia, L., Biasi, V., Lucidi, F., & Alivernini, F. (2019). The interplay between self-determined motivation, self-regulated cognitive strategies, and prior achievement in predicting academic performance. Educational Psychology, 39(4), 470–488. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1080/01443410.2019.1572104

6. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2016). The Mechanics of Motivated Reasoning. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 133–140. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1257/jep.30.3.133 (Links to an external site.)

7. Eileen Braman, & Thomas E. Nelson. (2007). Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 940. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.4620109&site=eds-live

Assignment for Week 5 -- Free Thinkers Group

Free Thinkers would like to add the following reference to the Wiki article, Motivating Reasoning: Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment & Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=90209836&site=eds-live This reference would be included in the section of Goal-oriented motivated reasoning with an expansion on Heuristic-driven information processing.

Assignment for Week 4 -- Free Thinkers Group

Free Thinkers chose to contribute to an already existing article. The article we chose was: Motivated reasoning

These are our 5 References for Motivated Reasoning Article (Lucretia gathered these references from the UVU library):

Dieckmann, N.F., Gregory, R., Peters, E., & Hartman, R., (2017), Seeing What You Want to See: How imprecise Uncertainty Ranges Enhance Motivated Reasoning, Risk Analysis, 37(3): 471-486. doi: 10.1111/risa. Epub 2016 Sep 26.
Kahan, D.M. (2013), Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgement and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424.
Klaczynski, P.A., (2000) Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: a two-process approach to adolescent cognition, Child Development, 71(5): 1347-1366.
McEachan R., et al., (2016), Meta-Analysis of the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) to Understanding Health Behaviors., Ann Behavior Medicine, 50(4): 592-612. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9798-4.
Tappin, B.M., & Gadsby, S., (2019), Biased belief in the Bayesian brain: A deeper look at the evidence, Conscious Cognition, 68: 107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.concog. 2019.01.006. Epub 2019 Jan 19.

Individual Assignment for Week 4 -- Free Thinkers Group

Thoughts on how we can improve this article:

Add photo descriptions
Integrate more references in the text
Expand on topics already on the article
Include any new topics that we find from research

Articles I am interested in editing as a team:

Three reliable references:

Kudesia, R. S. (2019). Mindfulness As Metacognitive Practice. Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 405–423. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.5465/amr.2015.0333 (MINDFULNESS-BASED COGNITIVE THERAPY)
Solomon, Z., Levin, Y., Crompton, L., & Ginzburg, K. (2019). Is Acute Stress Reaction a Risk Factor for Early Mortality? Health Psychology, 38(7), 606–612. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1037/hea0000744 (ACUTE STRESS REACTION)
Andres Rieznik, Mikhail Lebedev, & Mariano Sigman. (2017). Dazzled by the Mystery of Mentalism: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Mental Athletes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00287 (MENTALISM - PSYCHOLOGY)

Marci Notes -- Ideas Throughout the Semester

New Topic Idea: I came across an article that I think could contribute to the neural side of Motivated Reasoning. There isn’t a section for it on Wikipedia, but I think we could find references and create a section for it down the road (Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(11), 1947–1958. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1947)

I think that this Motivated Reasoning on Wikipedia needs a lot of work! Most of it, I believe, is copied from some article/source, and we will need to consider rewriting entire sections. With that in mind, I believe that this article (linked below) could help with calling out what heuristic-driven information processing is in the section of Goal-Oriented Motivated Reasoning, and also link readers to the Heuristic Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic (Links to an external site.)).

Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment & Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=90209836&site=eds-live