User talk:AELie515

Nice work!

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. AELie515 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AELie515, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AELie515! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, AELie515, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles

When editing articles related about medical-related topics, please bear in mind is that the standards for citations for these is higher than the general standard for sources in Wikipedia articles. Focus more on review articles and less on the latest discoveries. Findings like these are very difficult for a non-expert to put in the proper context without synthesizing a whole body of research literature. While we encourage the use of secondary and tertiary sources in general, this is especially important in medical-related topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate Review of Wikipedia Coumestrol Article

First of all, I thought the article was excellent. All of the information was well written and very informative. It contains a great introduction along with its ChemBox. Also I feel the article does a great job using links within the article to other wikipages. I just have some suggestions to the article to help improve it.

One suggestion is about the second paragraph in the introduction. I feel that it could use a little more explanation about the different receptors and fundamental differences between them. Then in the first paragraph about natural sources and dietary intake, I would just look to fix one or two words where it says “alfafa suggests it there may be”. I was not sure if you just meant to say “alfafa suggests there may be”. Also, in the final sentence of this section where it says that studies of phytoestrogen intake indicate that most human diets result in a negligible intake of coumestrol, I wanted to ask if you have any data that could fit here to say what the average intake is.

In the Biological Effects sections, I thought this part of the article was outstanding. It was very informative and truly explained the different effects of the systems. In the Genotoxicity section, I just was not sure about the definition of V79 hamster cells.

My last suggestion is about the Current and Future Research. I thought the information is very informative. Throughout reading about the effects of coumestrol on the different systems, I was questioning why you didn’t include more studies about humans, but then I read the Current and Future Research Part and it was perfectly explained. A suggestion could be to maybe put a sentence as you have in the Current and Future Research before listing the effects so the reader knows that most of the studies are done on animals and there is a lack of studies on humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyEagle55 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review (hake)

Overall Great job with the article overall, especially your research and the studies that were cited. Just a couple of suggestions – First, I would maybe add a section about coumestrol’s history and any policy associated with regulated it (if any) just because there was a sentence in the lead section about its discovery. Secondly, there was several times in the article where you mentioned terms and linked other Wikipedia articles to them, which is great. I just think that maybe for the more complicated terms, you could briefly define them in your article instead of making your reader open other Wikipedia articles several times within each section in order to understand what you were talking about. For example, under genotoxicity, I think the term “clastogenic” is especially important and should be defined within your article. Otherwise, great job!

Lead Section

Overall, great lead section. The only thing I would say is that you mention some things in the lead that are not further expanded upon in the rest of the article (specifically the binding between coumestrol and its receptors, which I think is extremely important to elaborate on more than you did in the breast cancer section).

Natural Sources and Dietary Intake

I thought this section was extremely important and well defined as “natural sources and dietary intake” as average human intake of coumestrol and sources are relevantly associated and should be spoken about before expanding upon physiological effects once humans have ingested coumestrol. Great use of specific scientific data, specifically the table defining the coumestrol levels in in specific foods, as you referred to this in your lead section. Just a small suggestion - I don’t think you need to link to articles for viruses, bacteria, fungi – seems a bit unnecessary since most people know what these are (but you should keep the link to aphids).

Biological Effects

Nervous System

When talking about the effects on the nervous system, I would put it more in the context of the effects on mammalian nervous system in general (since what is relevant are the effects on the human brain), and then explain that these effects are evidenced through the effects of phytoestrogens on rats. Otherwise, great job in garnering specific scientific data based upon published studies.

Skeletal System

This section seems a bit short. If you can find a little bit information, that would be great. If not, maybe you can mention it under another heading.

Reproductive System

I would suggest the same as the above (speaking about mammalian reproductive system v. rat reproductive system and then back it up with studies). Otherwise, the data seems to be very specific, relevant, and informative.

Genotoxicity

In the last sentence, you should define what a single-stranded breaks in DNA is, since the purpose of the article is to describe the physiological effects of coumestrol intake, and the general public may not know what a single-stranded break may do in terms of mutations and genotypic effects.

Menopause

I feel as though you can possibly remove this section and create another section called “Endocrine System,” since coumestrol has estrogenic properties. This would probably be one of the more important sections since coumestrol’s hormonal effects are significant. You can add a lot of what was in this menopause section in this “Endocrine System,” section, referencing to the effects that coumestrol has on menopause. Furthermore, the last sentence about “mental health,” may be better under the nervous system. Additionally, the information under “Endocrine System,” “Reproductive System,” and “Nervous System,” seem somewhat related and should come first under the Biological Effects section, followed by the more specific effects on metabolism, skeletal system, etc.

Breast Cancer

I think this is a well-researched and written section and seems extremely significant. If there is any more info regarding coumestrol’s role in breast cancer, this section should definitely be expanded on if possible. Maybe it would be better placed as its own section or even under the current and future research section.

Current and Future Research

Good job ending with this section since it stresses that coumestrol is not fully understood and should be further looked into concerning the effects on humans.

Envdisrup2 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was looking back at your article and you made some great changes! I especially liked your section on "reproductive system." I found no real grammatical errors or anything I felt needed copy-editing looking back at it again.

136.167.210.89 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate Review

Intro - the sentences about food seem a bit out of place…maybe another section if you guys have enough information? - great job linking out to other Wikipedia pages!

Natural Sources and Dietary Intake - why are there higher levels of coumestrol found in aphid-damaged plants?

Biological Effects - Nervous System: “male rats exposed to who nursed from mothers”…kind of awkward wording - Reproductive System: awesome information! - Skeletal System: Do you think you could find any more information on this? - Menopause: maybe move this section to under “Reproductive System” because they relate well

Current and Future Research - do you have any examples of research that’s going on now? That’d be interesting to read about!

Overall You provide a lot of interesting information. I’m not sure if some of it is too scientific (I’m not sure what the requirements are for that in Wikipedia terms), but the layout is great. I didn’t see any grammatical/spelling errors (go you!). Great job on educating on the world on coumestrol :) Stack0711 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]