User talk:Chung.esther/sandbox

You had a great introduction into your topic that described what the page was going to be about and the addition of the studies was very helpful.

Maybe sort by chronological order or by which studies found a correlation and which ones did not. It was a little bit confusing to read. The facts were there but it was just hard to understand. It needed to be a bit more organized. Also, maybe go into a little bot more detail into each study. Other than that, it was a really interesting page that you created.

Peer Review for Suicide Methods article
What does the article (or section) do well?

The topic is an important one. The article was written in a neutral tone, perfect for Wikipedia. This article has a lot of very interesting information, so some sentences really kept the reader intrigued. It is evident that a lot of research went into collecting all of this information. At the bottom of the article is a very impressive reference list. The majority of the article is cited and has relevant links to associated Wikipedia articles which is very useful for the reader. There were several sentences I noticed as being vital to the paper: “A positive association exists between firearm availability and increased suicide risk” “Those who have recently purchased a firearm are found to be high risk for suicide within a week after their purchase”

What changes would you suggest overall?

In general, I think the article could use some work in terms of flow and organization. I would suggest adding subsections with titles, making it easier for the reader to understand larger topics within your article. The second paragraph does not cite most of the information. As a general rule, I would cite every sentence that is not common sense. The large middle paragraph contained a lot of primary research, which I would avoid including in a Wikipedia article (primary research = first hand research). Opposed to our literature reviews, the Wikipedia article should not include individual research articles, because they are not widely accepted claims, but instead the claims of what was observed in one specific research study. The large paragraph also repeats a lot of the same claims; you want a Wikipedia article to be concise. Instead, of mentioning each specific study and what was found, I would summarize in 2-3 sentences the overarching, widely-accepted conclusions. Smaller, grammatical suggestions include the use of oxford commas, addition of spaces after linked words, and rephrasing some awkward sentences.

Example of Oxford comma: "Generally, the bullet will be aimed at point-blank range, often at the temple or, less commonly, into the mouth, under the chin or at the chest." Add a comma after “under the chin”

Example of spaces after linked words: "Research by economists John Lottof the U.S." Add a space after “Lott”.

Example of awkward sentence: "This association tends to only exist for firearm-related and overall suicides, not for non-firearm suicides." Rephrase this sentence.

I would also advise that you don’t use quotes, like the last sentence your contribution.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution?

Remove primary sources/primary research

ElizahBecker (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC) Elizah Becker

You had a great introduction into your topic that described what the page was going to be about and the addition of the studies was very helpful in putting gun suicide into perspective.

Maybe sort by chronological order or by which studies found a correlation and which ones did not. It was a little bit confusing to read. The facts were there but it was just hard to understand. It needed to be a bit more organized. Also, maybe go into a little bit more detail into each study. Other than that, it was a really interesting page that you created. Nitikashekhar (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)