Talk:Extended parallel process model
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Adding New Sections
[edit]After collecting resources and looking at the article, I have decided to expand it by finding relevant citations and including a few more sections, which I have discussed below.
Firstly, I believe the article would benefit from a historical overview of fear appeal literature and how the EPPM was initially formulated. This will help readers understand the need for the EPPM and how it bridges the gap between prior fear appeal theories.
Secondly, I have added 'Criticisms' and 'Empirical Findings and Applications' sections to the article. I believe this to be relevant as criticisms of the EPPM are as important as the model itself and are imperative when evaluating its effectiveness and understanding its role in fear appeal literature.
Finally, something not covered in the stub is the 'propositions' outlined by Wittle and colleagues that propose the changes the EPPM could induce. I would like to incorporate this into the article as this might offer additional context for the application of the EPPM and serve as foundational information when evaluating the model's effectiveness.Teenytinyhooman (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Preface: Deleted Initial Post
[edit]Upon posting the previous talk post, I have realized that my first post here has been deleted. I would like to provide some context and summarise what it was about. In my initial post a month ago, I explained that I was going to be editing this wiki stub article over the course of the month, and welcomed any changes or recommendations to be posted to my talk page or under the article's talk page. As this is a part of my university assessment, I will be wrapping up my contributions by this week's end. Teenytinyhooman (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion - Removing a previous citation + contribution updates
[edit]Some updates: I've added a few sections to the wiki stub, and re-phrased some previous text. Also, I'm considering removing the first citation that redirects users to the 'Andrew File System Retirement' - I believe it was initially intended to redirect to an article or paper that is now unavailable on the website. I am currently looking for other websites where the original article can be found and if I've succeeded, I will add it back into the wiki article.
Additionally, two more sections are yet to be added by me: the 'Criticisms' and the 'Propositions' section. I am considering making a graphic to illustrate the propositions or the model, but I believe the one created by the previous contributor sums up the model perfectly. My contributions are done, I am just making a few final touches, and will update here once I've finished contributing to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenytinyhooman (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Fixing broken links and repairing citations
[edit]I would like to let the editors and moderators know that I have completed the editing of the article, except for a few minor changes which I will take up during the next five days.
New changes to the article involve fixing and adding better links to the body, and also fixing citations. I noticed that citations sometimes had missing values that were highlighted by the wiki editor, so I resolved this issue by collecting data on the cited documents, and ensuring that they were cited with proper information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenytinyhooman (talk • contribs) 05:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Final Thoughts and Suggestions
[edit]Working on this stub article (which I have now noticed has been moved out of the stub section, so yay!) has been a great journey. I loved picking up information, reading up on original articles and also figuring out how to best present the information from research articles in a way wiki explorers and students could easily understand. So far, I have re-worked on the original contribution in terms of grammar and sentence restructuring. While I have not deleted any of the original contributor's content, I certainly added to the content, by first including a 'Backgrounds' section, and then an 'Applications' and 'Criticisms' section. I also actively worked on finding citations, adding credible sources to the article, verifying information. Finally, I re-worked on some sentence structures and added some finishing touches by resolving citations and missing links. I will still be looking to make slight changes to this article over the course of the next few days, but as mentioned earlier, this will only be minor. A majority of my contribution has now been completed. I very much enjoyed the work and am glad to see that the article has been removed from the stub category of Wikipedia! Teenytinyhooman (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Removing Weak Citations
[edit]Hi all! After finishing up my work and going through the final stages of proof-reading, I've realised that one of the citations in the 'Criticisms' section - citation [9], has a very low impact factor, and therefore I decided it was best to remove it so as to maintain the reliability of the article. Would welcome any suggestions or alternate papers for the same. Thanks! Teenytinyhooman (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)