User talk:Alexandet/sandbox

Article Evaluation 1/17/18 : Substance Use Disorder.

As the author defines what Substance Use Disorder is, the author does stay relevant to the topic by stating in the banner of the article what creates the disorder of substance abuse. The terms of "substance use" are not too discrete and therefore the author makes sure to describe what kind of symptoms take place to have this disorder as well as what drugs are commonly found to be used in substance abuse. On the side of the article, the author put a box of terms to help better guide the reader through the text. Due to the fact that this article was about substance abuse, there was no bias to be found and the article stuck to truly informing the public. The article does include a section that leaves room for opposition and criticism. The author did a great job with having a variety of different treatments, and did not just state one or two treatments. The article is laid out in an organized way that is balanced for the reader. The article does provide a vast amount of information for the "dependence" section making it almost half of the article. This could seem as a unbalanced article, however including this section of "dependence" helps inform the reader about one major problem that is apart of the disorder that is an underlying cause for Substance Use Disorder. In the end, this section does need to be here to inform the reader, however shortening that section or just writing another paper on dependence would be a better idea. Reviewing the citations of the article, the author did a good job on having most of their cited sources from scholarly articles. However, the author needs to work a little better to rephrase the facts that they got from the sources. A good portion of the sources do go back in date to the 2000's which may not be the best times to use for sources due to the fact that research has changed over time. I am unable to find the date that the article was published however I am seeing that edits are being done currently in 2017 and 2014 so I am curious to see when the article was published. Looking at the talk page there is not much communication due to the fact that the article is a Wiki-project, however there were a few small comments that were allowed. The comments stated that the section about "dependence" that the section was too long. Another stated that some definitions were incorrect and also stated symptoms to be incorrect as well. Overall, the article stands as a good article and was very informative to read. It went into deep detail explaining the deep down science and biology. However, the author should go back reexamine, and restate a better definition of Substance Use Disorder creating a better way to educate the public.'''

Reply to Peer Review
I appreciate all of your great pointers and want to say thank you for pointing those mistakes out. The sentences that you asked me about, you are correct about replacing those words they are mistakes and that was due to my error. Also I had a question, what do you mean by being understandable rather than informal? Should we write to inform or be understandable? What in your opinion is the best way to go with that because the flow of my article has some spots where the words need to be “fluffed” or just made a little more understandable because the words are laid out in a way where they can be dull or use vocabulary that is hard to understand. Tianna Ramos Garcia (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Tianna Ramos Garcia  (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)