User talk:Sara.hartson
Welcome
[edit]Hello, Sara.hartson and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.
Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.
Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.
We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Northern_Colorado/Hearing_Loss_Prevention_2018_(Fall) . |
Sara.hartson, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Sara.hartson! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Sara.hartson, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Article evaluation
[edit]Article being evaluated: Hearing Test
EVALUATION CONTENT Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? The content in the article is relevant to the topic of hearing tests, however there is a lot missing and some of the information is not updated or current. The poor image of the hearing test being performed was distracting. Under the ear examination section they went into discussion about the most common reasons to develop hearing loss, which is distracting and not relevant to the section. There should be a separate section regarding hearing loss.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The image of the hearing test being performed is out of date and needs to be updated. The summary at the beginning of the article is very brief and could be updated to be more complete and current. Under the pure tone audiometry section there is a lot of information missing. There is no explanation regarding different transducers and the difference between air and bone conduction pure tone audiometry tests. The section is very minimal and does not have a lot of pertinent current information regarding the testing. There is a rather large section on the Weber and Rinne tuning fork tests. This is out of date and the information needs to be updated. It reports that tuning fork tests are necessary to determine the type of hearing loss- this needs to be updated. There is a section on hearing in noise tests, which is good to have, but the information is minimal and not complete. More information could be added for a better description of hearing in noise tests. There is only one other section in the article that is labeled as "other". In here it has bullet points about other speech tests, tympanometry, and acoustic reflex tests. These each need to be complete sections with updated information regarding each test in that respective section. There are only two references in this article, so there needs to be updating on this area as well.
What else could be improved? There was only one image of a hearing test being performed and it was very out of date. The image did not have a current audiometer in it (it was a portable audiometer in the image). The caption underneath the image said that the test was being performed in a "sound-proof" testing booth which needs to be corrected. The sourcing of the information in the article needs to be improved. There needs to be more sections with more tests that are performed at hearing evaluations, and the information needs to be updated and more thorough. The information is very basic and outdated in this article.
EVALUATING TONE Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral and there are not claims that appear to be heavily biased toward one particular position. It seems that the article is just not updated and complete with current information regarding hearing tests.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are sections that are overrepresented and underrepresented, but I think this stems from the lack of information in each section. The tuning fork tests are overrepresented with information, and all the other tests are underrepresented by lack of information or lack of a dedicated section.
EVALUATING SOURCES Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? There were only two citations on this article. The first citation has a link that works. The link goes directly to the article, which is available to be read. The other article has a DOI that goes directly to the article which is also available to be read. The sources do support the claims in the article, however the articles are from 2003 and 1994. There needs to be many more sources and articles that back up the current claims made by the article.
Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? No. Only two references are in the entire article, so a majority of the facts that are represented are not referenced. The sources that are cited are from neutral sources and come from appropriate and reliable journals. There just needs to be more references in the article.
CHECKING THE TALK PAGE What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The only thing that is on the talk page is Ellyn Kuehne's addition of a section on speech in noise testing. She created the section with three references, which are all very appropriate and reliable. This is a good section, however there are no other conversations going on regarding this topic.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated as "Start-Class" by the WikiProject Medicine, but it is also rated as low-importance on the importance scale. The article is rated as "Start-Class" by the WikiProject Deaf, but it is also rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The way that Wikipedia discusses the topic of hearing evaluations in a very outdated way. There is quite a large section on tuning fork tests, and we barely cover those tests in class. We do not do these on typical hearing evaluations. There is not a section on tympanometry, speech testing, or acoustic reflex testing. These are all important aspects of every hearing test, and we talk about these at length in classes so this needs to be updated. We talk about this topic as being very important and this topic on wikipedia is very outdated and inaccurate. It shows that there's a big discrepancy between what we learn as audiology students in comparison to the knowledge of the general public.
Article Selection
[edit]Hearing test This article has only two citations, so it needs improvement in that area. There are a lot of gaps and missing information as well as information that is not up to date. The article's content is relevant, however there needs to be improvement to the information for it to be accurate and current. It is written neutrally, but there are not citations for every factual claim. There is a lot of citation work that needs to be done on this article. There also needs to be expansion done in terms of what is missing for content. One person has contributed to the page on the talk page, and it's a solid contribution. However, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. No other contributions or conversations have occurred on the talk page.
Some things I would add: a tympanometry section, a acoustic reflex section, a speech testing section, and I would break up the section of pure tone audiometry to have subsections of air and bone conduction pure tone audiometry.
Ear Protection
This article is very minimal. There is one paragraph of information with on citation. There is a lot of room for improvement with this article.
Some things I would add: types of hearing protection, hearing protection programs, what excessive sound levels are, exposure vs. sound levels, and dangers of not wearing hearing protection when exposed to excessive sound levels.