User talk:Gjs200

This user is a student editor in Medical_University_of_South_Carolina_-_MUSC/WikiProject_Medicine_-_Medical_Writing_(Fall_2018) .

Gjs200, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gjs200! 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 experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You earned this

Smithdu92 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Great job! I like what you did with the article, adding diagnosis was a big improvement. I worked as medical editor in a previous life, so I think I may have went overboard on editing. As a point of note, the recommendations are just my two cents (you can make some, all, or none of the changes recommended.) I made a MS One Note file which I can send as Word document that has a number of recommendations. I went tabular for ease of referencing, but it doesn't allow me to post the table here on your talk page. I will include the brief summarized review guide below. The detailed rec's are on the Word document. Also, please contact me (Brad) so that I may email you the rec's. (I can't find your identity on the class page).

Your goal with a peer review is to identify specific ways the article could be improved, and note any major problems that ought to be fixed. Consider these questions: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Yes, no. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not particularly. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Needs more citing throughout. Noted in attached document some of the areas that specifically need citations.� -The error (below) shows up in many of the sources:�Check date values in: |date= (help) �� Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? No. See above and attached document. Sources don't appear to have a bias. OC isn't really a controversial topic. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? Sources include some very recent reviews I have made several small recommendations for things to add to the article.MedicalEdits (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]