User:MTFFTM/Cancer and nausea/Apolloh01 Peer Review

General info
MTFFTM
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MTFFTM/Cancer and nausea - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cancer and nausea - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Changes that are made appear to be mostly neutral and well-written, although it is a bit unclear what you're seeking to change versus what is already present on the wikipedia article, though I did notice that you added a few of these drafted changes already.

Having a section on PROs is a really good idea, though there certainly needs to be a lot more added to make it substantial enough to be its own section. I am not entirely sure on this, but it appears that the source that you utilize on your sandbox is a primary source (original research) rather than a secondary source (synthesis and analysis of preexisting research), so I would highly recommend seeking some sort of meta analysis or systematic review that covers PROs and cancer nausea with multiple studies (I always find that looking at the methods section is a pretty good giveaway as to whether or not the study is primary or secondary).

I personally like the change from "other measures" to "nonmedical interventions" as it provides a more specific header for the section, however it is also important to consider that therapy and alternative medicine fall into the category of "medical interventions", as some would consider therapy as a type of medicine. The change in the title wording does make the section feel a bit less neutral, and more opinionated on what constitutes as medicine.

I also liked the nuance you provided for ginger as an alternative treatment, and the source you provided appears to be a good secondary source. I see you also used that source to add a section on classical conditioning, placebo, and expectation, which I think are both very important aspects to note when it comes to cancer nausea- great use of your sources! Even if placebos aren't fully effective, it is great that this information is there for others to read. The language for these new parts are seem neutral and informative, and where you added your contributions seems to be appropriate and well-organized.

Overall, I think your focus on adding to the library of information on miscellaneous treatments / approaches for nausea is a great focus, and something that was the most lacking on this article prior to your contributions. Adding a section on patient perspectives could very well be a great way to further improve this article, as that is another area that is sorely lacking at present.