Talk:Miltefosine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leeraymo, Victor arias, Lypimentel21, Sophia.lai. Peer reviewers: Adonia.eskandari, Stella.lee, Sh2018, Maradona 10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Plan
Below is our plan for editing particular sections on the wiki page. We are planning to review each section and individually add information we believe is missing. Teammates will make sure tract the changes via this talk page and/or resort to the revision history to see the changes others have made and make suggestions. We will also make a summary of what changes were made and/or information we would want other teammembers to know about on the revision history.

Intro: ALL Medical Use: Raymond Side Effects: Sophia History: Sophia Future History: Victor and Liriany Reference and Links: ALL

Lypimentel21 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The History section of miltefosine is comprehensive, well-cited, therefore, does not seem to need additional edits. A new Contraindication section was added. Sophia.lai (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A pregnancy and breastfeeding section was added under "Medical Uses". A short "Mechanism of Action" section should be added as well - Raymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeraymo (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Mechanism of action section was added - Raymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeraymo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we add references for the side effect stuff? Victor arias (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review (Group 17)
STUDENT 1 - Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify.

Yes, this article reflects a neutral point of view. It does not share one-sided opinions or personal stories. And no where in the article do the authors attempt to persuade the reader toward a certain view.Stella.lee (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

''STUDENT 2 – Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…'' Yes, the edits made by students are verifiable with the listed references. However, the adverse effects/side effects section relied on lexicomp as a reference. Although lexicomp is a very reputable source, it may not be accessible by users who do not have lexicomp subscriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonia.eskandari (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

STUDENT 3 – Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles?

Yes, the article is written as if it is in an encyclopedia - as is Wikipedia's nature. It is written in passive tone and addressing the reader indirectly. There are a few great examples embedded in the article but none excessive. The sources used as not discussed directly in the article. Instead the sources merely reflect "verifiable statements" as outlined in Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles. Thus, overall it is consistently formatted with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. Sh2018 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

STUDENT 4 – Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify

No, there is not evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Students edits are not only verifiable with the listed original sources, but these edits have also been properly paraphrased by restating the author’s ideas in their own wording and style. Maradona 10 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)