User:Jim892/sandbox
Unit 7 Assignment is at: User:Jim892/sandbox2
[edit]Please note: The Unit 7 assignment is posted in Jim892/sandbox2 to avoid issues with the large amount of information already in this sandbox. Moving to "sandbox2" also helps to protect against accidental damage to this page and will simplify editing of the Unit 7 assignment because we will not have to constantly scroll over the other content on this page. So, thanks for your understanding! Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Unit 5 Assignment - Two Articles from PubMed
[edit]How Safe are Botulinum Toxins for treating Cervical Dystonia
[edit]It may surprise some people to know that botulinum toxins are actually injected into people to treat certain diseases. In the case of Cervical Distonia, a disabling and sometimes painful disease, [1] botulinum toxin injections have "dramatically improved the quality of life of patients...".[1] But is the use of a potentially lethal toxin safe? In order to be sure, a long-term follow-up study of patients treated with botulinum toxin [2] followed 100 patients that were initially treated 10 to 12 years ago. The overall conclusion of the study was that for the treatments were "...effective and safe..."[2] It is important to note that the dosing and side effects are different for the various forms of medically approved botulinum toxin. Overall, the safe use of toxins requires that each treating physician be fully informed of the side effects and the potential for anti-body formation.[1]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Brashear, A (2005 Mar). "The safety and tolerability of botulinum toxins for the treatment of cervical dystonia". Expert Opinion on Drug Safety. 4 (2): 241–9. doi:10.1517/14740338.4.2.241. PMID 15794717. S2CID 21523. Retrieved 8 October 2013.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b Haussermann, P.; Marczoch, S.; Klinger, C.; Landgrebe, M.; Conrad, B.; Ceballos-Baumann, A. (2004 Mar). "Long-term follow-up of cervical dystonia patients treated with botulinum toxin A." Movement Disorders : Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society. 19 (3): 303–8. doi:10.1002/mds.10659. PMID 15022184. S2CID 33316591.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
Summary of characteristics of target article
[edit]The following is a summary of the WikiProject article quality grading scheme.[1] Grades are listed in the order that an article will progress through from "just beginning" (STUB) to "near perfection" (FA or Featured Article). For our Molecular Biology class, we are targeting Grades B to GA (see sections highlighted in blue).
- STUB - the most basic level and generally represents an article that is in the beginning stages of creation. At this point the article may be just a sentence that defines the topic and/or an outline of what the future article will contain but with minimal content.
- START - article has basic information but content is not complete and still needs references.
- C (C-Class) - content goes beyond basic information and has some references. Much work is still needed to provide a full scope of information on the topic and to make the article flow well.
- B (B-Class) - generally complete and with no significant issues. May still have issues with content and style and may need to be audited against the Wikipedia style guidelines.
- GA (Good Article) - passed an "official review" and has content that would be judged as useful to most readers. Not "encyclopedia quality", but approaching that level of quality. Content is well referenced.
- A (A-Class) - Content has been peer-reviewed and is useful to all readers. Only an expert in the field would be able to identify something that was lacking. Might still need an expert to adjust the wording in a few places to get the message exactly right.
- FA (Feataured Article) - The top status for articles reaching "near perfection" and passing an official review. Content is excellent and professional and meets the goal of being "encyclopedia quality". Content is complete to the extent that nothing more is needed unless there are new developments.
References
[edit]
General Testing - Bold - Italics - Links - References
[edit]Let's try a link for Nucleotide and a dummy reference.[1]
However, please do not think of the person named in the reference as a dummy!
Level 2 heading
[edit]And now let's use cite.[2]
Level 3 heading
[edit]Perhaps we can also cite JHU again.[2]
References
[edit]- ^ Perry J.A. et al. (2004)
- ^ a b JHU, Staff. "JHU website". Retrieved 17 September 2013.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
[edit]1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the web
[edit]- This includes specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an advertising platform. It is not a dictionary or a newspaper.
2. Wikipedia will provide a neutral point of view
[edit]- All points of view should be represented equally such that everyone will fill they have be correctly represented.
- Wikipedia should not leave the reader with the impression that one view is better than another.
3. Wikipedia content is free
[edit]- Anyone can edit, use, modify or distribute the information from Wikipedia. Editors do not "own" the content.
4. Wikipedia editors should be respectfully of each other
[edit]- Avoid "nasty grams" and "editing wars". Act in good faith and assume that others are also acting in good faith.
- Always work toward a concensus. Stay calm and avoid "nasty-grams" and "editing wars".
5. Wikipedia has no firm rules
[edit]- There are policies and guidelines but they can evolve over time.
- The principles are what is important and the key is to stay within the spirit of these fundamental principles.