User talk:Beiyulin/sandbox

Katherine Grierson Peer Edit
What does the article (or section) do well? What changes would you suggest overall? What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

1. The three sections add to the overall article by including more research backing up the treatment methods. The original article lacks any research or studies that show the effectiveness of the treatments for Alzheimer’s. These additions give the article substantiality to these sections rather than just stating whether or not the treatment is being used. 2. The three sections completed seem sufficient enough. Any other studies completed on the treatment methods could be added if applicable. The lead in the original article is very short compared to how many sections there are. The lead could be improved to better introduce what is covered in the article. Many other sections are also very short with no substantial research to back them up. If more studies/research is out there, then more information can be added to these sections to improve the article. 3. I think the most important contribution would be to improve the lead. With the lead being very short, the reader initially gains little about everything included in the article. Most readers will likely revert to other sources if they cannot see that this article includes a lot more information that the lead shows. Most readers may not even get down to this author’s contributions. 4. I have not yet included links in my article to other useful Wiki pages and this author did. The links included were important and useful and gave me ideas for which ones to include in my article. Grierson.k (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Haley Perrone Peer Edit
What does the article (or section) do well? What changes would you suggest overall? What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know!

The original article definitely needed some additional information, such as specific research examples. I think Pam did a great job including necessary updates. The research that she cites is thorough and she clearly explains the conclusions that were reached with each study. She also makes it clear that the conclusions are not yet generally accepted treatments for Alzheimer's, which is very important. I would recommend that Pam adds hyperlinks to terms that may not be understood by the average reader, such as cytokine measures and beta amyloid. This may make the article more reader-friendly. While our article choices are very different (hers focusing on modern medicine, mine focusing on historical information), I think her work is a great example of a concise, informative article with reputable sources.

Perrone.h (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)