User:Leah611/sandbox

Evaluating Content
'''* Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? ''' Yes, everything seemed relevant within the article. Nothing was distracting as the topic was general enough to encompass the information within the article and everything was formatted in a way that made sense. Although, the "Introduction" and the first few paragraphs of the article focuses on Western astrology then in "History" it starts talking about other zodiacs from other regions/religions/cultures and even though some are similar to the Western zodiac, it was slightly confusing on whether or not that was part of the history of the Western zodiac or its own entity (i.e. a separate type of zodiac). Possibly changing the "Introduction" to not focus solely on the Western zodiac or mentioning there are other types of zodiacs would make it less confusing when reading the "History" section. '''* Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? ''' Everything seems up to date as the newest reference is within the last year or two. I'm not sure if there are any recent studies within 2018 that could've been added. Maybe clarify what zodiac is being specifically discussed in the "Introduction" paragraph. It seems like it was the general astrological, Western zodiacs many people follow, but then they talked about other types of zodiacs, so clarifying that in the title would be helpful. There's more in depth understandings of horoscopes in relation to zodiacs based off the planets in retrograde, the sun and moon signs, etc. so adding more information on that would be interesting. '''* What else could be improved? ''' Proving a little more background information on why the zodiacs horoscopes are so popular would be interesting to read. Possibly discussing the evidence behind why people believe in zodiacs so much. For example, is there any scientific evidence behind why we believe or follow zodiac signs. Comparing and contrasting the different types of zodiacs around the world would be interesting to see. Adding a timeline of when different zodiacs came to be would be good to know as well.

Evaluating Tone
'''* Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? ''' Yes, the article was overall neutral. It was simply stating what exactly the different zodiacs were and the history behind them. They provided the signs, dates, and pictures of each as well as cited the pages for more information on the different zodiacs making it as fact based as possible rather than opinion. With horoscopes, it's easy to give an opinion on what each horoscope means and the article did well at just stating the stories and meaning behind each one without too much bias. '''* Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? ''' The Western zodiac dominated the post. Initially, I thought the zodiac they were going to discuss was the Western zodiac, but then they started talking about other zodiacs. If this was intended on being only about Western zodiacs then the title should be changed and the history should better relate to the Western zodiac and not talk about other zodiacs unless it's relevant to the Western zodiac. If this is about all zodiacs then more information of other zodiacs should be incorporated. The history talked about other religious and cultural zodiacs, but it seemed like a simple list and not too extravagant. I believe there could be more zodiacs out there and adding those zodiacs or even citing those from other potential articles would be useful.

Evaluating Sources
'''* Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? ''' Some of the citations you have to look them up yourselves and a few are linked directly. The ISBN and doi were used, which is helpful for other resources to read from. It'd be nice if all were directly linked to an article or webpage already. '''* Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?''' There doesn't seem to be too much bias as the sources are from encyclopedias, books specifically talking about zodiacs and horoscopes, definitions, and webpages all related to the topic. These sources that come from books that have titles such as "True Meaning of Horoscopes" are difficult to stay bias as horoscopes aren't truly fact they are "predictions" based off of situations that are circumstantial and broad so to say it is the truth is bias. Horoscopes are typically opinions. Bias was not noted.

Evaluating the Talk Page
* What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Conversations on the validity of the statements made (e.g. how do you watch the sun crossover the sun?) and fact checking information (e.g. dates) are a lot of the conversation happening within the topic. Edits such as "name" is something I agree with as I thought the name was misleading as well since there was so many other types of zodiacs being discussed I was a bit confused which direction the article was going.

'''* How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?'''

This article is a c-class, level 4 article. It is also a part of WikiProjects: Astrology and WikiProjects: Astronomy.

* How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Zodiacs were not discussed in class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

Maternal-Fetal Conflict
The article I have chosen to edit in Bioethics is the "Maternal-Fetal Conflict." There is not an article on the subject yet so I will be starting from scratch. I have already reached out to Ian, one of our Wikipedia Education Staff for the course, on help with how to start a new article. There is an article that discusses "Parental-Fetal Conflict," which I hope to edit and cite to my "Maternal-Fetal Conflict" page and vice versa.

Adding Citations
Since "Maternal-Fetal Conflict" does not have an article yet, I will add my citation example here to practice adding references and citations on Wikipedia. One of the articles I hope to use discusses the bioethics of the "Maternal-Fetal Conflict." This article categorizes "Maternal-Fetal Conflict" into several sections, which include: Right to Privacy - Respect for Maternal Privacy, the Fetus as a Patient, Maternal–Fetal Beneficence and the Role of the Physician, and Legal Issues. I hope to expand on these topics by using other articles to dive deeper into each topic. I plan to include examples of situations where "Maternal-Fetal Conflict" can occur.

Note to Peer Reviewer
To whoever is peer reviewing my article: I have to create a whole new article for "Maternal-Fetal Conflict" as there is no existing article. To avoid confusion, I created a new sandbox for the article as I cannot just copy and paste my article into a pre-exisiting article. For my article specifically, I have to move my entire sandbox into my article and it's a different process compared to those that already have pre-exisiting articles.

Please refer to: User:Leah611/New sandbox for my "Maternal-Fetal Conflict" article, but please write down your peer review below so I don't accidentally move your peer review into the article along with the rest of my drafted article. Thank you and advanced apologies for the complication!

Peer Review #1: [Insert Student Peer Reviewer #1 Name]
Thank you for the feedback, Julia. I have copied your peer review from my "new sandbox talk" page and bolded it, then responded accordingly below each comment. I will be sure to incorporate what I can into my article.

'''I think explaining the shift in maternal-fetal conflict from unity to duality perspective is very helpful. I would (if enough peer reviewed information can be found) introduce a short history section explaining the emergence of maternal fetal conflict and its implications in women’s health thought time. How did society affect these choices? I know it is still a controversial issue and it is likely to continue to be controversial, but was it more controversial before? You sort of do this in your lead section. I would add a little more information in your lead section encompassing your articles main sections: Ethics and the the fetus and mother as two separate as well as united entities.'''

I'll look into articles to see if I can find a timeline to incorporate into my article. I'll be sure to add more information on the mother and fetus from one entity to two entities into my lead.

'''Privacy and autonomy section looks good. I would clarify which ways and maybe which conditions may lead to overriding a woman’s right to autonomy in circumstances like this.'''

I have a couple articles on this topic, I'll be sure to add them and expand on the topic.

'''I think you did a good job explaining the basics of the fetus’ perspective in having the right to become a child. You could maybe elaborate in how ethicists do not agree with each other or what the popular differences in opinion are on independence of a fetus from the mother.'''

I'll add more information on this topic. I'll add it to the "maternal-fetal relationship" section as it seems more fit there rather in the section on just the fetus.

'''The last sentence in the subsection ‘defining a “healthy fetus”,’ could be reworded a bit in order to flow better. I think the subsection is very appropriate and well placed.'''

I'll be sure to reword that! I agree it's a bit choppy.

'''In the second sentence of ‘Experience, Circumstance and share interest’ woman àwomen. (Minor grammatical error)'''

Thank you for catching that!

'''If you are able to find good sources, I would elaborate a little bit on the alternative viewpoint contrasting with conflict: shared interest. How did these views originate? Are they due to maternal-fetal conflict emerging as a term? This makes sense especially because of the larger section it is under: Maternal-fetal relationship.'''

I will try to find another article on this topic, but the one where I cited from doesn't really expand and I haven't been able to find more information on "shared interest" rather than "conflict"

'''Under legal issues, maybe you could add any relevant court cases, if there are any? I think you placed this section very well by prefacing ethical section you are still working on. Good job.'''

I will be sure to add a few more examples there.

I would title your 'Examples' section something a bit more informative, maybe using the word ‘health’ within the heading.

Thank you for the advice!

(Juliastein8 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC))

Peer Review #2: Irina
Hi Arleah! Making a new article from scratch is difficult, but yours looks good so far! Here's some feedback to help you in your draft:


 * Just a formatting suggestion: Your first section (Maternal-Fetal Conflict) is a good introduction to the topic, and could go above the table of contents. This way when someone opens up the page, they'll see your intro first instead of the table of contents.

Thank you for the suggestion. I will do that edit right now. I was wondering how I can fix that so I appreciate your help. It definitely looks better that way.


 * For maternal rights, you mention three rights (privacy, autonomy, and informed consent). Maybe you can expand on each of these in their own individual sections. Or if they are hard to separate, maybe just taking out the header "privacy and autonomy," unless you plan to add more subsections to maternal rights that are unrelated to "privacy and autonomy."

That's a good point. I will definitely make that more clear whether it's to take out the header "privacy and autonomy" or expand more on the 3 rights.


 * Under fetus > independent moral status, I suggest briefly expanding on different viewpoints of when fetuses gain moral status (kind of like Dr. Kwan's midterm 1 extra credit!)

Definitely will do that :)


 * Can you clarify/define the difference (if any) between maternal-fetal relationship and maternal-fetal shared interest?

I'm hoping to find another article to expand on the topic of "maternal-fetal shared interest," but so far I've only found 1 and it doesn't expand much on it


 * For your section "ethicist views on maternal-fetal relationship," how will this differ from your "ethics" section further down in your article? I know you haven't written either yet, but just something to consider to avoid redundancy!

I was thinking that too. I'll definitely figure out what I'm adding to each section and see if it's better to just have it all in one section


 * I'm not sure if you were already planning to add a section on this (maybe in examples?), but in the last sentence of your introduction, you talk about mother denying health recommendations (ie blood transfusions) or life choices (eg smoking) that harm the fetus. It'd be interesting if you could expand on them or use a case to highlight the situation.

I'll add more examples to expand on this point. Thank you!

Feel free to ask me any questions on my comments and suggestions! Can't wait to see how the full article turns out. Good luck with the rest of the project!

- Irina

Maternal-fetal conflict final article
I completed my maternal-fetal conflict article and transferred it from User:Leah611/New sandbox to its new home "maternal-fetal conflict."