Talk:Sweetened beverage

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): AJAndes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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): DavidEdit, JV1954, Yeonbi0705, Eduvalyan. Peer reviewers: Vreddy9.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Bad Article
Not only does the article only discuss a single facet (health concern) of the actual topic (sweetened beverages), and takes a large bias in doing so. Even the presented definition is a little slim. If I knew how, I'd nominate for speedy deletion 144.32.60.216 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
Add diabetes section - the page is currently lacking information on the link between chronic consumption of sweet drinks and onset of Type II Diabetes Mellitus

Add section about policy - The page does not have any mention of policy regarding this issue and we would like to link to the Sugary Drink Tax Wikipedia page that Group 18 will be working on.

Add section for artificial sweeteners - Many drink companies have started to create zero sugar, zero calorie alternatives to their high sugar drinks under the guise that it is better for you and doesn't have any health risks. However, this is not true and we want to bring that to the readers' attention since it can still effect insulin sensitivity and cause diabetes onset, along with other risk factors as well Eduvalyan (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Group 20 Peer Reviews: Very in depth facts on sweetened beverages with some good studies sourced. Updated statistics on most current demographics available to the public. These edits significantly improved on the wiki page since 2014. Goals initially stated were generally met with extra additions to the edits.

Student 1- Great work! All the edits to the article you made have a neutral point of view because they directly reference studies/sources such as the CDC. I don’t recognize any biases to your edits so there’s no misleading the presented facts. Vreddy9 (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Student 2- I liked how many of your sources came from either the CDC or WHO. These are great governmental sources that collect raw data and are generally unbiased. For citation 21 & 22, they are the same link so I think they should be consolidated into one number. Otherwise, they all seem to be legitimate scholarly articles. I went through all of the sources to make sure that they are readily accessible, I found that they all are accept source 22 which needs to be accessed by a paid database. Amirsali094 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Student 3: Proposed edits are consistent with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for Medical-related articles. This group targeted a general audience and avoided using encyclopedic jargon. The sources cited are reputable and necessary. One thing to note is that Wiki article titles please use sentence case not title case per Manual Style. Umordi (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank's for the feedback Uche!, I will go ahead and change the heading titles. It looks like the entire article needs revision on that point as well! Eduvalyan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Will adjust the headings for my section too. DavidEdit (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Student 4: No evidence of plagiarism; no sudden changes of grammar and vocabulary between individual edits, no change in writing styles in individual edits. There are no traces of media plagiarism noted on the edits since no scans or images were added to the edits. Edits were checked with PlagTracker to check for any warnings or signs of plagiarism. The search engine results for the edits came back as negative; no signs of plagiarism detected, plagiarism report 0. Jurjy (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)