User talk:Harleengs26

Welcome!

Hello, Harleengs26, 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) 17:36, 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) 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sup har its mags Helenma (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harleen! This is Kiera, just checking in for our project :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieradkeller27 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DL-Phosphinothricin Peer Review for EDD

Hi Harleengs26. Sorry to dump all this on your talk page.
The DL-Phosphinothricin article has come a LONG way since I peeked at it last. There's a lot of good information here! Most of my comments are regarding formatting. Grammar and spelling looked fine throughout. This is turning into a very thorough article.

General comments on the whole article:

I would avoid capitalizing DL-"Phosphinothricin" in the body text. I think you only have to capitalize the DL, though I could be wrong on this.
For the headings, only capitalize the first word, like you would a sentence, unless of course there's a proper noun. I did the same thing at first, but most Wikipedia articles only capitalize the first word.
Any time you use the Latin names for organisms, it's proper to italicize them. If they have a common name, I would defer to that if you think it would be more well known by that name. Otherwise, use the Latin and italicize it.
I think you could use WAY more citations for this topic. You have plenty on the talk page - use them! You have some good stuff there. Also, just a note - when in doubt, cite. It's helpful to both users and editors, especially if your information is coming from many different places.
On a similar note, see if you can't use Wikilinks more for some of the more specific molecules and processes. It's helpful to users who aren't versed in the material so that they don't have to type out the thing to look it up.

Leading section:

Apart from wikilinking some more (ammonium salt, glutamine, photosynthesis), convert the citation at the end into a reference citation. Also, perhaps you could try to reword one or two of the lines of the lead, just so that DL-p isn't the first word each time (not a biggie). The rest is fine.

History

Avoid putting in editory notes in the published article ("to add: general history").
I would consider splitting "History" into separate "History" and "Use" sections, with Use coming first. Neither have to be terribly long, but it will make it easier for readers to find the info quicker.
This section needs a bunch more citations, if you can find them. If you can't, and the last paragraph can be found in the citation for the "Glufosinate-resistance" paragraph, put it at the end of the last paragraph.

Production

Is there info out there that explains the relationship between DL-phosphinothricin and L-phosphinothricin? Are they the same?
I'm not sure if there exists any information on how this chemical is synthesized beyond the bialaphos reaction, but if there is I would suggest including it. Is there any information on who manufactures/manufactured it?
The biochemistry section could be expanded a bit, especially regarding how DL-p acts to increase ammonia/use glutamine

Human exposure sources

I would suggest combining this section with Health and Toxicity into one "Health", perhaps with subheadings for Exposure and Toxicity. The info here and in Toxicity is good stuff, but it may work more logically in one combined Health section split into subsections, rather than separate full sections.

Toxicity

Regarding the GHS classifications, I would consider moving this info into the chembox on the right. Most people looking at DL-p won't be interested in learning the classification codes, but the info is still valuable. See this, which lists the codes and their corresponding GHS diamonds. If you follow instructions here, you should be able to add these diamonds to your chembox with relative ease. This should clean up your toxicity section. You can certainly include what such classifications mean (like, "The GHS classifies DL-p as acutely toxic if exposed orally or if DL-p is ingested"). These should be codes that work: {{GHSp|GHS07}}, {{GHSp|GHS08}} if you format them as shown in the link above.
I would also add the NFPA 704 classification to the chembox. Here is the link to where I found it. Also, it might help you to search for DL-p's other names. Here, I used glufosinate ammonium, as DL-p results came up short. The code that you can add to the chembox for this is:
| NFPA-H = 2 | NFPA-F = 1 | NFPA-R = 0 . Add them as shown here.

Environment

DEFINITELY include a section on this if you can find some good info on it.

Regulation

Be careful about how US-heavy you go on the regulation side of things. Editors will jump at you. We had it happen to our page. I see you've mentioned the WHO and FAO - I would look into these and see if you can't find more detail. The regulation section is one of the places where it's OK to put some more science-y information, like LD50 or exposure limits if they have been determined. On that note, I would rename the section to just "Regulation", and if you have enough info from the WHO and FAO, or other countries, you can add subsections accordingly.

References

Just FYI, you have a duplicate References heading

I apologize, I realize some of this might sound rude or picky (frankly, I don't think there's a way to sound any different on Wikipedia; I don't mean to sound like a certain picky user by any means). A lot of my suggestions come from things that editors have said on our talk pages, which I think you might be able to incorporate. Feel free to ask if any of this needs clarification, or if you don't agree. I certainly haven't gotten this stuff down yet myself. Good article, guys!
--DeusetScientia (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I'm just reposting my review onto your talk page.

Overall, I think this a very informative article so far. You guys have a great format with exciting information. The major issue in this article is the amount of content. You guys have a great start, and I'm excited to read the completed article. Below you will see my thoughts on each individual section.

Introduction: The lead section is straightforward, and gives a great overview of the article.

History: You have a great start, but I think this section needs to be expanded. Instead of using a bullet point format, I believe a paragraph format will flow better. It will allow the reader to better understand the history of DL- Phosphinothricin.

Production: This section is straightforward, and very informative. It could be expanded some more.

Human Exposure Sources: I think the first 2 subheadings can be simplified. Maybe you can change it to “Environmental exposure” and “Food Exposure”. Other than this, I think this section is nicely formatted, and informative.

Toxicity: This section is well formatted, and you have a great start. It just needs to be expanded some more if there’s new research on the topic.

Health Effects and Environmental Effects and Issues: These will be good sections to have, and I'm excited to see what you find on these topics.

US Regulation: I think you should consider changing the name of this section to “Regulation” or “ “World regulation”, and try to find information about regulation standards for other countries. This prevents the article from being US-centered. bellre (talk) 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Medical information

As you have already been told, information about human health requires the highest quality sourcing. This is not a suitable source for information about the toxicity of a herbicide as the author lacks any scientific qualifications and is a strong advocate against GM food, further the site is clearly advocating organic food and there is no reason to think that they have any editorial system. You're a student and therefore presumably have access to journals so use them. Google scholar is the place to look. If you're struggling to find things let me know. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse- So, my understanding is that primary sources are not to be used in creating Wikipedia articles, and after looking carefully at the source I felt comfortable in using it! We (a few students and myself) are continuing to add to and edit the page currently and hope our further edits will be more up to standard.

Harleengs26 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of the case, but it's much more complicated unfortunately and this source should definitely nnot be used anywhere. It's far worse than a good primary source as it's completely unreliable. These are the kind of sources that you need to read and summarise: [1] [2]. SmartSE (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]