Talk:Tolerable weekly intake

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 11 December 2015 by reviewer LaMona (talk · contribs).

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

You need to expand on this entry. What are PTWI and how do they differ from TWI? How are the TWI established? How do they relate to ML?570jdw (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like your primary section 1.1 is meant to be a paragraph under your project title. You should correct this.570ma (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be more appropriate to have the References as a Primary Section rather than as a Subsection.570ma (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your introduction which you have as primary section 1.1, you mentioned TWI as being similar to TDI but you did not define TDI.570ma (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to say more about the Background. What you have isn't clear. What do you mean by "The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR)." This statement is incomplete and doesn't say anything. Consider revising the statement.570ma (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with some previous comments. Additionally, I think that bullet point number 1 under Data Sources perhaps should be moved to the Background section. Data Sources can then be used to describe how TWI values are calculated, as you described in bullet point 2. It also helps to link to other wiki articles within yours so that you do not need to define the terms that you use -- I added a couple of these for you, since they were wiki pages I already looked up for my project page. One last comment - could you expand on the "appropriate safety factors" used in bullet point 2? We went over this in class but I doubt it is common knowledge. Overall this will be a useful page that helps clarify differences between some of these very similar terms.570akc (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of the comments above. Also you might have to change the editing as the entire 1st paragraph is showing up in your content section.570sou (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the calculation part it will be useful if you add an example to show the calculation. Like take a certain body weight and put it in the equation and show it for a particular chemical. It will make things easier for people looking into the page.570sou (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of the previous comments, please include more about the background, differentiate between heading and the subsection as they are similar. Background is less specific and creates a bit confusion. Data sources and the description does not substantiate the flow of the topic, please evaluate the flow. Some practical examples of the distinction in use between tolerable and acceptable intake may help.570sku83 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the information you presented. I'm curious as to if this is an entirely new page all together or if it is an addition? If it is a new page, I would add just a bit more information to make the page complete. Maybe add on an example of a tolerable intake equation in a common setting? I would also expand on the “background” heading section. There just seems to be a list of organizations and their relative approaches, but doesn’t really tie into why and how TWI is applied. I would also hyperlink in the first occurrence and mention of ADI and TDI to its relative wiki page. You have ADI linked later under “background”, but you first mention it in your first paragraph. Under “Data sources”, I would go a little more in-depth as far as the differences between permissibility and acceptability, and between intra-species and inter-species differences. For a relatively new topic to me, I did walk away with some new information, so good job! 570clk (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SOU that an example calculation would be a nice addition that will help you point stick in the minds of readers. I would suggest explaining more about the safety factor approach when you reference it in the background section, as there may be readers who are not familiar with what you are talking about. Perhaps you could link to an existing page with a good explanation or add a sentence briefly summarizing? It might also help to add perspective if you would include a section describing the applications of TWI in terms of risk assessment, etc. to help readers picture how the information you are describing is used after being generated. If this is going to be an addition to an existing page, however, this may not be necessary. Overall, I think your page is well written and the content is good (and I did learn some new things while reading it). --570ers (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]