Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Education program handout

Lane, I can't see a link to WP:MEDMOS (just the Sections bit) This should be near the start. Possibly all the links should be together, with basic general ones - cheatsheet, WP:Tutorial etc. I always link to Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia (the PLoS Computational Biology paper). wiki CRUK john/Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of subject

I was slightly wary when I read: "Choosing an article Generally, follow these guidelines when determining which medicine article to improve: • Choose a topic that isn’t already well- developed on Wikipedia (look for what’s known as “stub” or “start-class” articles — check the talk page for an article’s rating)." - that's a good strategy, but not the only one. I don't think we should put people off tackling more developed articles with gaps, out-of-date sections, or that are just plain wrong. Generally I'd rather see even beginners edit articles that are relatively well-viewed, and watched, than most stubs, which get few views and have few watchers. But yes they should avoid better articles and ones with really big views. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One that are already GA and FAs may not be the best ones to start with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but plenty of "C"s with annual views in or near 6 figures are obviously defective, especially in having jargon-only leads, which is actually an easy and very useful thing for a beginner with understanding of the terminology to improve. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement here :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]