User talk:Angela432/HeLa

Sorry entirely forgot to leave this here on the talk page. Finished up the peer review a couple weeks ago on this page. Hope it helps! Jc181maple (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

MH final comments

Good job so far, and on carrying the edits over. For your final project (due May 8), I'd like to see you focus on the citations, making sure all facts are backed up by a reliable source; this is a key element of the Wikipedia assignment. As you do so:

1. Take another look at the lead and make sure it's as tight as it can be; right now, there are a couple redundancies (I'm not sure what the last sentence tells us that wasn't already adequately said at the end of the first paragraph). This is a point that applies to academic writing more generally - make sure you spend a good bit of time on the first thing your reader sees (here, the lead; in an essay, the introduction), as it's the "first impression" that will set the tone for the reader's experience of your work.

2. Again, all parts of the 'Analysis' and 'Contamination' sections need citations. Some of this is low-hanging fruit: if you can identify the sources of the two block quotes (I'd suggest just plugging them into Google), and footnote all the studies that are already mentioned by name, you'll be well on your way to getting the citations you need. If you have any issues with the mechanics of adding these citations, review the 'Citing Sources' activity, and email me if you have any problems.

The rubric for the final assignment is in the 'Course Content' folder on the Blackboard; review it and let me know if you have any questions. Looking forward to seeing this in its final form! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

MH comments

Nice job on the organizational revisions! Now, it's time to get more involved with the content and citations.

1. Starting with the 'Controversy' section, go through and make sure all statements are thoroughly cited. How do you know that there was no communication between tissue donors and doctors? There are a number of articles testifying to this, and I suspect you can even find one (use the JHU library search) that discusses Lacks as precisely such an example. Skloot's book would also be a good source to cite for some of these statements, such as the fact that Lacks' family couldn't access her files. The rule of thumb for citations - in this article as well as in your own work - is that if the reader should be able to find the source of every specific fact. So if it says there were 'many examples of the lack of informed consent', I should be able to click the citation at the end of the sentence and see these examples.

2. The 'Uses in Research' section is already fairly good, but again, check all the citations and make sure everything is watertight. What is the source for stating that the HeLa cells were important in the study of Downs syndrome, for example? Use the library and Google to look into any specific research connections.

3. The 'Analysis' section has no citations, and needs them. There is nothing in the 'Telomerase' section and the 'Chromosome number' section has a huge block quote without a citation. Most of these are present in the original article - if you have a specific reason for having stripped them, find alternatives, but if this was a copying accident, make sure they're put back in.

4. The 'Contamination' article could use a substantial trim. Since you have footnotes, it's generally not necessary to explain who said what in the main text, and rather than leaving the original block quotes, paraphrase everything down into a summary. Look at the summary of Gold's book and think about how this information could be incorporated into the rest of the discussion; similarly, paraphrase the ICLAC quote and use it as information rather than presenting it as is. As an exercise, see if you can get the entire section down to three paragraphs.

Given that this is a relatively high-traffic article, it's also particularly important that you post a comment to the Talk page of the original article explaining that you're drafting a new version of this article for a WikiEducation class, providing a short summary of the changes you're planning to make (reorganization, removal of certain sections, etc.) so that when you begin moving this across in a couple of weeks, it won't come as a surprise.

Read your peer reviews and continue to revise in the sandbox (all your old drafts are saved automatically). Let me know if you have any questions as you prepare your second draft!