User:Johannah Stevenson/sandbox

Evaluate an Article (Week Two)
User:Johannah Stevenson/Evaluate an Article

Topic (Week Three)
Topic: Blood Donation

Week Four
Added in bold

Donor safety
The donor is also examined and asked specific questions about their medical history to make sure that donating blood is not hazardous to their health. The donor's hematocrit or hemoglobin level is tested to make sure that the loss of blood will not make them anemic, and this check is the most common reason that a donor is ineligible. '''Accepted hemoglobin levels for blood donations, by the American Red Cross, is 12.5g/dL (for females) and 13.0g/dL (for males) to 20.0g/dL, anyone with a higher or lower hemoglobin level cannot donate. Pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature are also evaluated .''' Elderly donors are sometimes also deferred on age alone because of health concerns. '''In addition to age, weight and height are important factors when considering the eligibility for donors. For example, the American Red Cross requires a donor to be 110 pounds or more for whole blood and platelet donation and at least 130 pounds (males) and at least 150 pounds (females) for power red donations.'''

The safety of donating blood during pregnancy has not been studied thoroughly, and pregnant women are usually deferred until six weeks after the pregnancy.

Week 5
The REAL ASSIGNMENT

Blood Donations During Natural Disasters:

Blood donations tend to always be high in demand with numerous accounts repeatedly stating periodic shortages over the decades (Sass). However, this trend is disrupted during national disasters. The trend demonstrates that people are donating the most during catastrophes when, arguably, donations are not as needed compared to periods without disasters (Sass). From 1988 to 2013, it has been reported that there was a greater number of units donated (that is over 100 units) than used on patients for every national disaster (Schmidt). One of the most notable examples of this pattern was the September 11th attacks. A study observed that compared to the four weeks before September 11th, there was an estimated increase of 18,700 donations from first-time donors for the first week after the attack (about 4,000 to about 22,700) while repeat donors increased their donations by 10,000 per week (about 16,400 to 26,400) (Glynn, Busch, Schreiber). Therefore, in the first week after the attack on 9/11, there was an overall estimated 28,700 increase in donations compared to the average weekly donations made four weeks prior to the attack. However, despite the substantial increase of donors, the rate that first-time donors would become repeat donors were the same before and after the attack(Glynn, Busch, Schreiber), demonstrating that for many donors, donations shortly following the attack were a one-time occurrence. The occurrence of September 11 is evidence showcasing that many people who meet the requirements to donate do not donate as much as they could (Glynn, Busch, Schreiber). To better understand the reasoning for the influx of donations, one must understand the core reasons for donating blood in the first place. Multiple studies have shown that the main reason people donate is due to “altruism”, general awareness regarding the demand for blood, increased confidence in oneself, helping a personal friend/relative, and social pressure(Edwards and Zeichner). The reason for the increase in donations is most likely due to altruism and national pride. On the other hand, lack of blood donations can occur due to fear, lack of faith in the medical professionals, inconvenience, and the lack of consideration for donating(Drake).

The Need for Blood Donation

The American Red Cross states that each day an estimated 36,000 units of red blood cells are needed (American Red Cross) with not enough donors to match the demands. Most shortages during the year occur between July 4th and Labor Day as well as between December 25th and January 1st. Not to mention, there isn’t a consistent demand for each blood type. One type of blood being in stock does not guarantee that another type is. Blood banks may have some units in stock but lack others, ultimately causing the patients that need units for specific blood types to have delayed or canceled procedures (Glynn). Additionally, every year there is an increase of around 5-7% for transfusions without an increase of donors to balance it as well as a growing population of elderly people that will need more transfusions in the future without a predicted increase in donations(McCarthy). Along those lines, it is known that blood can expire and have a limited shelf life[90], making it essential for donors to continuously donate blood.

Bibliography: (not complete yet)

https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/how-blood-donations-help/blood-needs-blood-supply.html

McCarthy, L. J. 2007. How do I manage a blood shortage in a trans-

fusion service? Transfusion 47(5): 760–762.

Schmidt, P. J. 2002. Blood and disaster—Supply and demand. New

England Journal of Medicine 346(8): 617–620.

Sass, R. (2013). Toward a More Stable Blood Supply: Charitable Incentives, Donation Rates, and the Experience of September 11. American Journal of Bioethics, 13(6), 38–45. https://doi-org.rcbc.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.781703

Edwards PW, Zeichner A. Blood donor development: effects of personality, motivational and situational variables. Pers Individ Dif.1985;6:743-751.Google Scholar

Oswalt RM. A review of blood donor motivation and recruitment. Transfusion.1977;17:123-135.Google Scholar

Piliavin JA. Why do they give the gift of life? a review of research on blood donors since 1977. Transfusion.1990;30:444-459.Google Scholar

Glynn SA, Kleinman SH, Schreiber GB. et al. Motivations to donate blood: demographic comparisons. Transfusion.2002;42:216-225.Google Scholar

Drake AW. Public Attitudes and Decision Processes With Regard to Blood Donation: Final Report and Executive Summary. Cambridge, Mass: MIT; 1978:1-189.

Summary:

The start of the article starts with a basic definition of blood donation: "A blood donation occurs when a person voluntarily has blood drawn and used for transfusions and/or made into biopharmaceutical medications by a process called fractionation (separation of whole-blood components)". The introduction continues to briefly explain important aspects such as types of donors, evaluations of donors, and collections. Most of the information in the introduction is short and only discusses the major aspect of blood donation, lacking a lot of information which is explained more in-depth later in the article. An interesting factor of the introduction section is the redirection to other Wikipedia articles that have little to do with the subject but share similar names:

"Give blood" redirects here. For other uses, see Give blood (disambiguation).

Blood donor" redirects here. For the TV episode, see The Blood Donor.

I like how the creators of the article valued efficiency for the readers when making the article. Overall, the introduction is a short, brief, but informative section regarding the topic of blood donation.

The rest of the articles in mainly divided into 8 different contents "Types of donation", "Screening", "Obtaining the blood", "Recovery and time between donations", "Complications", "Storage, supply and demand", "Donor health benefits", and "Donor compensation". Some sections such as "Complications" and "Storage, supply and demand" have an extensive and in-depth analysis regarding the content and the subject. However, "Donor health benefits"'s, and "Donor compensation"'s have a small section that can be expanded on by just my personal knowledge alone. These are the sections that I plan on improving. Contents such as "Screening", "Obtaining the blood" (which I think should have a better title), and "Storage, supply and demand" have subheadings that explain the contents further but I feel that some other contents could benefit from subheading too (again, "Donor health benefits" and "Donor compensation").

One of the major contributions to the article's length in the references with a total of 115 sources. In addition, the article offers related readings(that aren't associated to Wikipedia) that the reader can quickly assess if any of the subjects pique his/her interest. The offered readings include: "Blood Donation and Processing", "How youths are supporting on blood emergency in Nepal?", "Deferred Donors: Anemia & Blood Donation", "British guidelines for transfusion medicine", and "Definitive guide for safe blood donation". Another important aspect of the article is the "See also" tab in the articles that directs the user to related Wikipedia articles: "Blood substitutes", "History of blood donation", "James Harrison (blood donor)", "List of blood donation agencies", "Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy", "Xenotransfusion", and "World Blood Donor Day". This is important concerning the topic of blood donation because it belongs to a major part of medical and biological subjects, and thus are closely related to other topics. If the reader is interested in blood donations, perhaps blood donation agencies will interest him/her as well as any controversy and substitutions of blood donation.

Plans on the article:

will research donor benefits

history of blood donation should be included here (maybe the pre-modern world too)

section on why/why people don't donate

-major events that affected the blood donated in a population at a time (times of crisis)

Bibliography (possible articles that I will use) (I have more but I lost it when I logged out)

Karki, Surendra, et al. “Completeness and Accuracy of Self-Reported History of Blood Donation: Results from a Cohort of Older Adults in Australia.” Transfusion, vol. 59, Jan. 2019, pp. 26–31. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/trf.14986.

Pruszczyk, Katarzyna, et al. “Prior Blood Donations Do Not Affect Efficacy of G‐CSF Mobilization nor Outcomes of Haematopoietic Stem Cell Collection in Healthy Donors.” Vox Sanguinis, vol. 114, no. 6, Aug. 2019, pp. 622–627. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/vox.12816.

Patel, Eshan U., et al. “Sociodemographic and Behavioral Characteristics Associated with Blood Donation in the United States: A Population-Based Study.” Transfusion, vol. 59, no. 9, Sept. 2019, pp. 2899–2907. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/trf.15415.

Clackett, Shawn, et al. “Attitudes and Willingness to Donate Blood among Gay and Bisexual Men in Australia.” Transfusion, vol. 60, no. 5, May 2020, pp. 965–973. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/trf.15768.

PS: Screenshot and submit to Blackboard-Assessment the pages on which you found the information or of your desktop that answers the questions/requirements of the homework

Reach out to your Wikipedia Expert if you have questions using the Get Help button at the top of this page.

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * CharlesKinkade
 * (There isn't one yet: he hasn't started writing)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it hasn't been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

==== Lead evaluation: The lead is simple and concise and includes the major features of the topic but fails to introduce the main sections of the article like gameplay. I feel like there should be key information from these sections be introduced in the lead. (There is some attempt but I feel like there could be more). ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Nothing added but I feel like it will
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Nothing added but I feel like it will
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Charles in the talk page made some excellent points.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, that has nothing to do with the topic though.

==== Content evaluation: I think Charles made a good point in where he saw that the content needed to be changed: "As I was looking at this article I realize that it seems to leave out a lot about things that happened past 2018 including not even mentioning the games major Livonia Dlc. I plan to add sections talking about Livonia as well as go into detail on other things such as the controversy about the standalone release not including elements of the mod as well as other major topics such as the game gaining popularity due to streamers and youtubers" (CharlesKinkade). ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content added

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, Charles found out that they are mainly first-hand accounts
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Diction could be better.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

==== Organization evaluation: I praise that this article is really simplistic. That may be because of the lack of information but I quite enjoy it because it's concise and easy to understand though I think the word choice in some areas could be better. ====

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, not really.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No.

==== Images and media evaluation: I think there could be more images of use, especially since it is a game and you can display and capture the gameplay or game development. The article only has one image (basically of nothing) besides the title image. The caption of that picture is a little wordy. Overall, this section of the article needs to be developed. ====

Overall impressions:
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: no additions has been added
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: no additions has been added
 * How can the content added be improved? add to it

==== Overall evaluation: Though there is no additions to the article at this time, I think Charles has a good idea demonstrated by his ideas on the Talk Page. He wants to add more information involving Livonia, game controversy, and history prior 2018 (CharlesKinkade). Though I would recommend him clean up a few sections that already exist. The lead could flow a little better as well as fixing the diction. The lead doesn't really introduce the main sections and he'll have to edit the lead anyway if he plans on adding new information. Either way, good start. You just need to start writing (don't worry I do too!). I also recommend fixing any problems I mentioned in my previous evaluations of the sections above like the images and media, and the lead. ====

Assignment 8: Responding to Peer Review
As of this moment, no student or other Wikipedians have commented on my work that I have contributed. However, looking at the general feedback related to my article, "Blood Donation", I can redirect my focus to my contributions to the article.

The article, "Blood donation", is rating is a stub: "a short beginning of an article that needs more content". Therefore, my goal on this assignment is to add any significant or relevant information that I can. Which I plan to do and is already in the processing of doing by noting donors and donation patterns such as their reluctance to donate and what happens to the rate of donations during the direct aftermath of disasters. However, this topic isn't as relevant to the topic as it could be. Therefore, in the future I plan on focusing on donors benefits and history of the subject. I have already started obtaining new articles to view regarding this topic which is located in my bibliography.

In addition, a major thing that I need to fix is my bibliography. A suggested feedback was "Cite your sources! This article needs more references." Since it is a work of progress, the week prior to the feedback it was a mess. Therefore, this week I made effort to clean it up as it is now alphabetized and more organized into sections of potential sources sources that I have already used. This is can be found in my bibliography section.

Week 8 + 9 (improving my work)
Week 8: Fixed grammar mistakes and added notations for future improvements. Notations were made following questionable sentences using.

Blood donations tend to always be high in demand according to numerous accounts repeatedly stating periodic shortages over the decades (Make this sentence more factual, too vague, add stats). However, this trend changes during national disasters. The number of blood donations during disasters demonstrates that people are donating the most during catastrophes when donations are not needed when compared to periods without disasters (Sass). From 1988 to 2013, it has been reported that there was a greater number of units donated (over 100 units) than used on patients for every national disaster (RELOOK AT THIS FACT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE). One of the most notable examples of this pattern was the 9/11 attacks. A study observed that compared to the four weeks before September 11, 2001 there was an estimated increase of 18,700 donations from first-time donors for the first week after the attack (about 4,000 to about 22,700) while repeat donors increased their donations by 10,000 per week (about 16,400 to 26,400) ("while repeat donors increased their donations by 10,000 per week (about 16,400 to 26,400) THIS PART OF THE FACT DOENST MAKE SENSE).  Therefore, in the first week after the attack on 9/11, there was an overall estimated 28,700 increase in donations compared to the average weekly donations made four weeks before the attack.  However, despite the substantial increase of donors, the rate that first-time donors would become repeat donors were the same before and after the attack, demonstrating that for many donors, donations shortly following the attack were a one-time occurrence(RELEVANCE? relook to make sure you understand it. the number not the rate). This pattern is evidence showcasing that many people who meet the requirements to donate do not donate as much as they could (Glynn, Busch, Schreiber). (THIS NEEDS TO BE ITS SECTION, MAKE THEM BOTH SUB SECTIONS) To better understand the reasoning for the influx of donations, one must understand the core reasons for donating blood in the first place.  Multiple studies have shown that the main reason people donate is due to “altruism”, general awareness regarding the demand for blood, increased confidence in oneself, helping a personal friend/relative, and social pressure.  The reason for the increase in donations during 9/11 is most likely due to altruism and national pride(not a fact, opinion, get it out).  On the other hand, lack of blood donations can occur due to fear, lack of faith in the medical professionals, inconvenience, and the lack of consideration for donating.

Week 9: Added information to the lead to fit my additions to the article, represented by []. Fixed grammar mistakes and added notations for future improvements. Notations were made following questionable sentences using.

Lead: Today in the developed world, most blood donors are unpaid volunteers who donate blood for a community supply. In some countries, established supplies are limited and donors usually give blood when family or friends need a transfusion (directed donation). Many donors donate [for several reasons, such as a form of charity, general awareness regarding the demand for blood, increased confidence in oneself, helping a personal friend/relative, and social pressure. Despite the many reasons that people donate. Not enough potential donors actively donate. However, this is reversed during disasters when blood donations increase, often creating an excess supply that will have to be later discarded. However, in] countries that allow paid donation some people are paid, and in some cases there are incentives other than money such as paid time off from work. People can also have blood drawn for their own future use (autologous donation). Donating is relatively safe, but some donors have bruising where the needle is inserted or may feel faint. (review if info in this lead is discussed later in the article)

(This may be better with some of the facts in the other section)

The American Red Cross states that each day an estimated 36,000 units of red blood cells are needed with not enough donors to match the demands. Most shortages during the year occur between July 4th and Labor Day as well as between December 25th and January 1st (CITATION??). Not to mention, there isn’t a consistent demand for each blood type (CITATION??). One type of blood being in stock does not guarantee that another type is. Blood banks may have some units in stock but lack others, ultimately causing the patients that need units for specific blood types to have delayed or canceled procedures (Glynn). Additionally, every year there is an increase of around 5-7% for transfusions without an increase of donors to balance it as well as a growing population of elderly people that will need more transfusions in the future without a predicted increase in donations(RUN ON SENTENCE SPLIT IT UP). Along those lines, it is known that blood can expire and have a limited shelf life[90], making it essential for donors to continuously donate blood (ADD MORE TO THIS SENTENCE SO IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE AN OPINION)

Week 11
Added the edits made above to the paper and started to get an outline with my paper (more justification for the paper, add my own conclusions but eliminate that from the wiki article)

Researched a few more articles to add to my paper such as:


 * "Blood Shortages" by Sarah Ramsay
 * As Coronavirus Causes 'Severe' Blood Shortage, Senators Call for Ending Donation Restrictions on Men Who Have Sex With Men by Tara Law (will just be added to the paper since this is more of a controlled specialized subject and doesn't relate to the topic or my writings on the blood donations during natural diasters)
 * "Blood shortages become more common" by Scott Hensley
 * "Trends in age and red blood cell donation habits among several racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States" by a bunch of people
 * "Teenage blood donation: demographic trends, adverse reactions and iron balance" by A.F. Eder
 * "Positive Practice Toward Voluntary Unpaid Blood Donation Among College Students in Shandong, China, 2013-2017" by Shu-Rong Wang
 * "Regional and temporal variation in American Red Cross blood donations, 1995 to 2005" by a bunch of people

Week 12-14
Worked on the paper:

-expanded on my research introducing my opinions as well as introducing some facts and an image that was not suitable for my passage for the Wikipedia article

-need to: reflection of article; information adding your personal point of view about whether or not your chosen article is of sufficient quality and relevance. Also whether the understanding of how the article is organized and what it is attempting to accomplish is clear and appropriate to you or not

Completed my Wikipedia article passage:

-made sure citations were made

-organized them more

-found sub-sections in the article where it would work best

-deleted unnecessary information and deleted any opinions/personal biases in my work

Final Wiki Article Additions (week 12-14 also????):
From:

Donor health benefits[edit]
.......

Donor compensation[edit]
........

To:

Donator's Incentive and Deterrence
Multiple studies have shown that the main reason people donate is due to selflessness, charity, general awareness regarding the demand for blood, increased confidence in oneself, helping a personal friend/relative, and social pressure. On the other hand, lack of blood donations can occur due to fear, lack of faith in the medical professionals, inconvenience, and the lack of consideration for donating. Pathologist Leo McCarthy states that blood shortages routinely occur between July 4th and Labor day and between Christmas and New Year.

Donor health benefits
.....

Donor compensation
.........

From:

Demand for blood[edit]
The limited storage time means that it is difficult to have a stockpile of blood to prepare for a disaster. The subject was discussed at length after the September 11 attacks in the United States, and the consensus was that collecting during a disaster was impractical and that efforts should be focused on maintaining an adequate supply at all times. Blood centers in the U.S. often have difficulty maintaining even a three-day supply for routine transfusion demands.

To:

Demand for blood
The American Red Cross states that someone needs blood every two seconds while someone needs platelets in the 30 seconds in the United States. Not to mention, there isn’t a consistent demand for each blood type. One type of blood being in stock does not guarantee that another type is. Blood banks may have some units in stock but lack others, ultimately causing the patients that need units for specific blood types to have delayed or canceled procedures. Additionally, every year there is an increase of around 5-7% for transfusions without an increase of donors to balance it as well as a growing population of elderly people that will need more transfusions in the future without a predicted increase in donations to reflect those growing numbers. This was supported in 1998 where blood donations to the Red Cross increased to 8%, totaling 500,000 units but hospitals’ need for donations increased by 11%.

Blood donations tend to always be high in demand with numerous accounts repeatedly stating periodic shortages over the decades. However, this trend is disrupted during national disasters. The trend demonstrates that people are donating the most during catastrophes when, arguably, donations are not as needed compared to periods without disasters. From 1988 to 2013, it has been reported that during every national disaster, there was a surplus of donations; a surplus that consisted of over 100 units. One of the most notable examples of this pattern was the September 11th attacks. A study observed that compared to the four weeks before September 11th, there was an estimated increase of 18,700 donations from first-time donors for the first week after the attack: 4,000 was the average of donations from first-time donors before the attack which increased to about 22,700 donations; while repeat donors increased their donations by 10,000 per week:  initially, donations were estimated to be around 16,400 which increased to 26,400 donations after September 11. Therefore, in the first week after the attack on 9/11, there was an overall estimated 28,700 increase in donations compared to the average weekly donations made four weeks prior to the attack. Increases in donations were observed in all blood donation centers, beginning on the day of the attack. While blood donations were above average after the first few weeks following 9/11, the number of donations fell from an estimated 49,000 donations in the first week to 26,000-28,000 donations between the second and fourth weeks after 9/11. Despite the substantial increase of donors, the rate that first-time donors would become repeat donors were the same before and after the attack.

The limited storage time means that it is difficult to have a stockpile of blood to prepare for a disaster. The subject was discussed at length after the September 11 attacks in the United States, and the consensus was that collecting during a disaster was impractical and that efforts should be focused on maintaining an adequate supply at all times. Blood centers in the U.S. often have difficulty maintaining even a three-day supply for routine transfusion demands.

From: (Lead):

Many donors donate as an act of charity, but in countries that allow paid donation some people are paid, and in some cases there are incentives other than money such as paid time off from work. People can also have blood drawn for their own future use (autologous donation).

To:

Many donors donate for several reasons, such as a form of charity, general awareness regarding the demand for blood, increased confidence in oneself, helping a personal friend/relative, and social pressure. Despite the many reasons that people donate. Not enough potential donors actively donate. However, this is reversed during disasters when blood donations increase, often creating an excess supply that will have to be later discarded. However, in countries that allow paid donation some people are paid, and in some cases there are incentives other than money such as paid time off from work.

Stats:

around 586 words added

9 sources used