Kboydx23

Kboydx23, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kboydx23! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kboydx23, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Emily's Peer Review

First and foremost the topic of mental health is so very important to address; especially in the term of social/digital media's impact. Overall, I think the article outlines the topic very nicely and it appears to have gone through many edits before it was considered a decent article. Based on the article sources alone, there appears to be a great deal of supported content, which is pertinent to the success of an article- great job analyzing these authors! I am very impressed with the level of content within the article and the effort made in attempting to cover the topic; however, there are still many instances where edits could be made.

Some suggestions/recommendations I would consider for future edits of this article:

• The focus of the article --> does the author want to just focus on how digital media impacts a child's mental health or users overall? In the first paragraph/ introduction, this article appears to be analyzing the screen time usage of a child versus the overall impact digital media has on mental health.
• In addition to finding a focus, the article seems to take a sharp turn during the conclusion with utilizing digital media for mental health assistance. I think the author is attempting to showcase both sides/positives etc. but the information in between needs to be further developed prior to making the abrupt switch.
• What digital media outlets appear to cause more harm? Social media (Facebook, Instagram, etc?) or digital media in forms of advertising? These questions aren't really answered, but play a key role.
• Video games are mentioned throughout the article, but are mentioned "in passing" versus actually explaining the impact.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Overall, the article has some wonderful content and a nice foundation. But, development is the most important aspect of a strong article. Don't be afraid to add additional information. What media are impacting users more? How is it impacting them? What cause these addictions/impacts? etc.

Erkunkel (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health

Hi, I have a few head's up about the article.

The first is that since this deals with the topic of mental health, you will need to take this training module that discusses how to edit articles like this. This area of Wikipedia has more stringent requirements when it comes to writing and sourcing, so it's something that is really important for you to review.

I also saw that you used this study as a source. Studies are seen as primary sources on Wikipedia for any of the research, data, or claims made by its authors (who traditionally are the ones who conducted the study), so it must be accompanied by a secondary, independent source that reviews or otherwise covers the study. Popular press sources like newspaper articles about the study cannot be used when it comes to health and psychology topics and should be avoided when it comes to studies in general, to be honest. This section discusses the reasons why. Reasons why studies need a secondary source are as follows:

• The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately.
• Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, someone in Florida may respond differently than someone in California. Responses could also differ if the person was from another country entirely. Responses can be greatly impacted by a multitude of factors such as age, sex, gender, education (of the person and/or their family members), income bracket, culture, religion - there are many things that could alter how a person responds.
• Someone could ask why one study was highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic and perhaps had different results.

Finally, the article was recently brought to Good Article status, which means that it's more closely monitored than some of the other articles out there. My recommendation here is that you utilize the article's talk page to discuss any major additions or changes you want to make. I notice that one of the people who brought it to Good Article status is still editing the page, so they would be a valuable person to talk to when it comes to seeing what else could be added to the page. I'll ping the person (E.3) to see if they have any suggestions.

I hope that this all helps and doesn't discourage you - this is more along the lines of just things you should be aware of when it comes to the page and other modules you should complete. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)