Jump to content

User talk:Yalda22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Yalda22, 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
  • You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please add goals to the Talk page

[edit]

Hi, I see your group chose to edit HPV vaccine, however there are no editing goals currently posted to the Talk page. Please update. Health policy (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:

  1. Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
  2. We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
  3. Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
  4. The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
  5. We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
  6. More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
  7. Citation details are important:
    • Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
    • Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
    • Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
    • Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
  8. We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
  9. Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!
  10. Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
  11. Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

  1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
  2. Then click on "templates",
  3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
  4. If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WikEdu

[edit]

User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) can you provide some details here? Also Yalda please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, trying to modify my sources, however now I cannot do so. Also don't understand what MusikAnimal's vague statement or what is considered to be constructive statement. Thanks. Yalda22 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay have you read what has been posted above? Can you please use high quality secondary sources. Also please read WP:MEDMOS regarding formating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What is unclear to me is why there are no in detail discussions of the studies completed which FDA referenced in approving expansion of age for vaccination? Indeed they are primary sources, however these are the studies FDA utilized and referenced during approval. This was my goal with the addition of my initial edit and subsection, was to include the sources for studies which FDA referenced in their summary basis for regulatory action. In the current content of this article it references that FDA approved expansion of age and indication for Gardasil 9, but missing information and necessary discussion of how FDA came to approve vaccine implementation for females and males aged 27-45, which would entail discussing the clinical literature and findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalda22 (talk • contribs) 23:31, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

You added

[edit]

"On October 5, 2018, Food and Drug Administration released a summary basis for regulatory action and approval for expansion of usage and indication for the usage of Gardasil 9 to include men and women 27 to 45 years of age[1]."

  1. ^ Yu, Bo Nancy; Woestenberg, Petra J.; Wheeler, Cosette M.; Tanton, Clare; Sparen, Pär; Sonnenberg, Pam; Söderlund-Strand, Anna; Steben, Marc; Smith, Megan A. (2019-06-26). "Population-level impact and herd effects following the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis". The Lancet. 0 (0). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30298-3. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 31255301.

Can you provide a direct quote from this source that supports the text in question? I am just not seeing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.fda.gov/media/117054/download

That was not the source you used. The source you used was https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30298-3/abstract How does that support the content you added? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is unclear to me is why there are no in detail discussions of the studies completed which FDA referenced in approving expansion of age for vaccination? Indeed they are primary sources, however these are the studies FDA utilized and referenced during approval. This was my goal with the addition of my initial edit and subsection, was to include the sources for studies which FDA referenced in their summary basis for regulatory action. In the current content of this article it references that FDA approved expansion of age and indication for Gardasil 9, but missing information and necessary discussion of how FDA came to approve vaccine implementation for females and males aged 27-45, which would entail discussing the clinical literature and findings.

First with respect to the Lancet? I am trying to figure out why you used that source? Was it simple a mistake? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

Hi Yalda22, please don't re-add content after it's been removed from an article. Whenever content is removed it's important to discuss the removal on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the other editor. Now as far as primary and secondary sources go, primary sources are things that are written by the people who were involved with the given research or event. Here's how the the guidelines on sourcing for medical articles describe them:

A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.

The issue with primary sources is that we need to have a secondary source that provides commentary (and if needed, context) on the primary source. In the process this secondary source will also help validate the work. Even if the source was written by a person or organization or put out by a publisher that was very well respected, the secondary source is still needed. This is something that is actually very important when it comes to things like studies and documentation of personal experiences, as it's entirely possible for an otherwise respectable person, organization, or publisher to put out faulty work. It's actually more common than you'd think, to be honest. Most publishers just look for errors that would immediately invalidate the work. They don't actually verify the content in any true depth, which a secondary source typically would. As far as this all goes in regards to the edits to the HPV vaccine article, I'll review that more closely before stating anything else. I just wanted to write about the above parts before addressing that. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something else to add about primary sources as far as studies go, another thing to keep in mind is that they're very limited in their scope out of necessity. For example, they can't survey everyone - there just isn't enough time or money. As such, the study findings are really only applicable to the specific participants in the study. The findings may change depending on several factors such as culture, personal health (aside from what would eliminate them from the study), and so on, even if it doesn't seem like these things would make a huge immediate difference. (For example, an individual's culture may result in them being less forthright about some details.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, upon review I see what happened. You used all primary source studies as sourcing. You also used a source that didn't back up the given claim. In order to back up a claim the cited source will need to explicitly state the claim. If it doesn't state the claim then it can't be added to the article, even if it looks like it's implied. In other words, if the source doesn't state "Garfield is a cat" and instead just says "Garfield is cat-like" then we can't say in the article that Garfield is a cat. Us making that statement would be seen as original research, which shouldn't be in the article.
Studies are something that should generally be avoided on Wikipedia unless you have a secondary source that covers the study or unless you can show that the study is very influential - however the catch of this last part is that if the study is influential it would have secondary coverage about it. Now you could potentially use the literature reviews if there are ones in the study, however you can't use any part of the review where they relate the literature to their study. This specific criteria makes it more difficult to find anything in the literature reviews that can be used.
What you need here is to find secondary, independent sourcing for the content. A good way of discovering this is to look for who uses it as a citation. Web of Science is a good resource for this. You can use Google Scholar, however that resource will bring up content that isn't always reliable. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yalda22&oldid=909927715"