User talk:Bbadiey/sandbox

Peer Review

Overall, I really like the direction you are taking this article. The reorganization makes it much clearer. I especially like the “disuse” section (although, I am wondering if there is a better word for this?), as it clarifies that radical mastectomies are no longer in use. For some ways to improve this draft, in the history section, I would make sure the first sentence says “William Halsted and Willy Meyer”. In disuse, I think radical mastectomy should not be capitalized. I would also make sure every sentence with facts has citations. I also think some sentences in the disuse section are a little run-on, so read it out loud to see where you could split up some sentences so that each point is clear. Finally, the picture of the pectoralis major muscle is not unhelpful, but I am wondering if you could find a more relevant/instructive image instead. Kmm257 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

I am looking at "Radical Mastectomy":

Notes:

- The article itself is mostly relevant, i thought the history in the second section was useful, but that may not be as relevant to the topic.

- the article is very neutral, it sticks to how people were numerically impacted.

- the viewpoints are historical and scientific, both of which are represented well.

- the links to the citations work, and the sources support the claims, and the specific sections cited are relevant as well.

- Information comes from scientific articles and is very reliable.

- the talk page is populated sparsely with a question about sourcing, and a question about the effects section. It seems lacking.

- the wikipedia page focuses on the history and leaves the implications and other impacts that we talked about in class out

Notes

this source applies to the BRCA1 in the female fertility section and validates the statement about maternal age linked to risk in pregnancy

Sources and Plagiarism

  Blog posts and press releases are cursory and abbreviated sources of information. They usually do not go into something to a level in which it is a useful source, and furthermore usually cite other things as sources. A lot of blog posts also have no mechanism by which to regulate their information, meaning that people running them online could post whatever they wanted.
  A company clearly has a bias towards itself and its profits. It wants to make money, and could potentially use its website as a way to skew information in its favor. There is nothing inherently wrong with a company presenting itself in the best light possible, however Wikipedia needs to be a neutral compository of knowledge, and as such company websites are not appropriate sources.
  Copyright violation is when someone uses someone's intellectual property without asking/paying them, whereas plagiarism is when someone claims to have originated some form of intellectual property.
  Some good techniques include summing the information up into its essential components and internalizing that, and then explaining it again. You could also try to teach the concept to someone else, to help isolate the important information, and to avoid paraphrasing and plagiarism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbadiey (talk • contribs) 08:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC) 

Medical Article Notes

I choose the Radical Mastectomy page, for a few reasons. I think what the article does in the historical section is really good insofar as it establishes why the procedure was used, and who started and perpetuated its use. One thing the article does not do is tell the story of Bernard Fischer, mentioning him in a sentence near the bottom of the historical section, while there is so much to how Fischer stopped the radical mastectomy procedure. The sentence at the end cites both the study and Emperor of All Maladies, but only briefly mentions what happened, and why.

Some Sources that could be useful in this, in addition to the other two sources:

Copied From Radical Mastectomy

Missing Information: - the theory behind the experiment done - the motivations beyond the fundamental one, which was the death of patients - how the experiment was done - its results, and a check on their validity

Today, surgeons rarely perform radical mastectomies, as a 1977 study by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP), led by Bernard Fisher, showed that there was no statistical difference in survival or recurrence between radical mastectomies and less invasive surgeries.

Potential Additionally Material (sourced below) Dr. Fischer was skeptical of the Radical Mastectomy on theoretically grounds as he did not agree with the theory by which cancer cells spread from the breast onwards. At the time Halsted had proposed a model by which tumors spread in a spiral pattern away from the lump in the lumpectomy and Fischer noticed that the tumor spread was more random and non-correlated to the positioning of the lump. The experimental procedure involved a study of women with radical mastectomies, total mastectomies, and total mastectomies followed by irradiation. This study was randomized to ensure for experimental accuracy. After twenty-five years a follow up was done and these women, on a whole, lived longer lives due to the adoption of therapies other than the Radical Mastectomy.

Peer Review

I really enjoyed reading your edits!

Here are some suggestions: In the disuse section, you could expand on Fisher's studies and their impact. You could mention the difficulty that Fisher faced to fund and conduct these studies, how he finally obtained funding (what were the politics involved? what prompted the change of mind?), and the backlash from the medical community. If you decide to mention this, I would precede that with a couple of sentences on the popularity of the radical mastectomy.

In the practice section, you mention that "due to Halsted and Meyer's work, it was possible to cure some cases of breast cancer and knowledge of the disease began to increase". Can you expand on this? Or is this the paragraph after? (In this case, can you somehow reorganize the information so that the information on one topic is together?)

In the history section, you briefly touch on the basis of radical mastectomy, but you expand on it in the practice section. Is there someway to combine this information, either in the history or practice section, or in a separate section possibly titled something like "the idea behind the radical mastectomy"? It makes it confusing to read, because when I read the short paragraph in the history section, I wanted to know more, but the information was in a completely different section.

Overall, great article and I hope these suggestions help! Azg717 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)