Talk:Ear drop

Merge
I support the proposed merge from Antipyrine and benzocaine ear drops. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Keep it. A/B Drops ARE NOT the same as ear drops, it deserves its own page.--Cssiitcic (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes own medicine. Thus has all its own properties. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Group 8: We will be adding the following headers: shelf life, types and uses, and side effects. Then fill out those sections with cited information and/or link out to related wikipedia pages.--IsabelleTNguyen (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II
— Assignment last updated by Shhamid11 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Group 7 Peer Review
Person A 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Yes, the group's edits improve the article drastically by providing structure to the article. The structure allows for a natural progression of information as we go down reading the article and the introduction gives the reader a good summary of what the article will be about. 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain] Yes, the group has achieved all of its overall goals for improvement because they were able to include all the sections they wanted to while also fleshing out each section to include all the needed information. 3a.Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes, the article reflects a neutral point of view throughout the whole article. I believe the reader will not feel there is a certain point of view or opinion the group was trying to have the reader see. Melvin Chang (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person B

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? - Yes, they improved the article's framework by adding a contents section for better navigation, relevant information, and freely available resources which the user may be able to look up.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? - Yes, they have achieved their goals because they have added sections for shelf life, types and uses, and side effects. They have provided information on these topics and cited them with secondary sources.

3b. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? - Yes, the claims included are verifiable with the secondary sourced in the references section. Most of the sources are easily accessible for users with internet access. There are a few sources from NIH, Cleveland Clinic, and MedlinePlus. The first source listed was a textbook that I was unable to access. There were two primary studies and two package leaflets aside from the other secondary sources. Iswu (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person C

Person D Tsui.a (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC).

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

These group's edits significantly improve the article. The group has added relevant sections and it is overall organized and easy to follow and find information.

2. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

They have achieved their goals for improvement by adding the sections listed. Overall, it is an informative article, well organized, and easy to read without medical jargon.

3d. Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? [explain]

The edits do reflect inclusive language. There is no usage of the word "patient," no gender-specific terms, and no mention of specific races. Tsui.a (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)