User talk:Sleeshs
| This user is a student editor in UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Sleeshs, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thalidomide
[edit]Sleeshs, nice job on your edits to Thalidomide, thus far. One point to consider: since I noticed you didn't include any wikilinks, is whether there should be some links added, or not. Not all content needs to be linked, and having too many isn't good either. Have a look at the Manual of Style's recommendations on linking, at MOS:LINK. The section on Overlinking and underlinking may help you decide if any links need to be added. By adding this comment, I'm not trying to imply that they are needed (or that they're not); I'm just introducing you to a section of the "rules", so to speak, that you might not be aware of, so you can make your own decision. So, have a look at the guide, and see what you think. pinging @Shalor (Wiki Ed): Thanks again for your contributions, Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Mathglot! Sleeshs, there are directions on how to link to other articles here. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have another note for you - I saw that you were using studies as sources. Be very cautious with studies as they're seen as primary sources for any of the research, theories, or conclusions created by its author(s). As such, it needs a secondary source that reviews the study or covers the specific study claim that's used in the article. The training module on health and psychology related topics covers this. However that said, if the studies had literature reviews or did a general review of existing literature (or the lack thereof), you can use that as long as you don't use anything that is specific to this study. In other words, if they did a general review on the literature and stated that there weren't many studies out there, that is OK to use since it isn't a theory unique to the study they conducted. However if they were to review a piece of literature and say that it's proof that their study is needed or helps prove their claims, that shouldn't be used. I hope this makes sense - using studies is kind of a tricky area to navigate on Wikipedia. The module is good for this, but you can also review the page on the medical sourcing guidelines as well. The writing looks good, but you just need secondary sources for the study. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your feedback, I truly appreciate it as it provides a valuable learning opportunity. I'll take another look regarding the wikilinks to see if I should add any. Regarding the studies, I believe I have used them appropriately and didn't include information that was specific to any studies. If I have erred in any way, please do let me know and I will try to make changes as necessary. Sleeshs (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Foundations II 2019, Brian's Review
[edit](1) The edits made to the article are reflective of the guiding framework. There is good structure to the added content - a new section about the quality of life was added. The actual material in this new section was neutral and unbiased. The initial goals of adding information about quality of life and thalidomide embryopathy were addressed and added.
(2) Yes, the references cited were verified with secondary sources that were online and free for anyone to read/access. The citation of reference [100] and [101] were the same article, so I think you can just reuse [100] when citing [101].
Great job on the edits!