User talk:MMstudentMU/sandbox

Feedback

@Bkeefer97, MMstudentMU, Medford22, and Shelly870: Nice start on your draft.

Wikipedia articles have lead sections, they don't have introductions. The lead section should summarize all the major points in the article, and shouldn't include any information that isn't already in the body of the article. While your first section may be OK as a lead, it shouldn't be titled "Introduction". (Check out pages 7-9 of the Editing Wikipedia brochure for more information on layout and creating a lead.)
You're relying very heavily on one source that's a little on the old side. Biomedical content should be supported by sources that are no more than 5 years old - 2008 was a decade ago.
Your third source is a case report of a "rare adverse event". You're currently using it as a source to support the following

Other causes can be from mycobacteria and complications from HIV. Aseptic meningitis can also be a side-effect of certain drugs such as Cetuximab, which is used to fight certain types of cancers. Other drugs such as antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and others have shown to cause rare cases of aseptic meningitis, but are hard to link to specific drugs.

You can't make broad generalizations like that off a single, narrowly-focussed source like this. This source is documenting a rare event. It might be possible for an expert to use this source and make a general statement about cetuximab-induced aseptic meningitis, it isn't appropriate for us, as Wikipedia editors, to do so.

In addition, the article makes no mention of mycobacteria or HIV, as far as I can tell. So it can't be a source for that statement. The advantage of review articles is that they put this in context. You aren't required to evaluate findings and weigh a body of work. That's for the expert to do an their peer reviewers to verify.

I recommend that you take a look at WP:MEDMOS and make sure that your article layout fits the expected norm for medical articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]