User talk:Ecl67/sandbox

Prof D's Feedback: This is an incredibly important contribution. It looks right now like the greater portion of your contribution is about clinical trials and i think it would be appropriate to title a subsection thus, or re title the overall contribution. I also think that the subsection on diagnosis seems pretty clearly sub-dividable in its own right. More subheadings can be good for internet based reading, so this is something you can add. I wonder if linking back to an article on Hysteria may be helpful for the anxiety/NFS part. [I noted that C also commented on including article links. i wholly agree, and there are a handful of other spots that seem "highly linkable", and the links will transfer when you go from sandbox to original article so long as you are cutting and pasting from "edit" mode not from "read" mode.] Where will you be putting this in the article? I think C's feedback about needing to go back and update the lead in the original article is definitely relevant for your group's contributions overall. Something to keep in mind. Overall, fantastic work here. Your citations are looking good. With the ones that say "check date values in"... I think the issue is probably based on how you generated the citations -- that is to say, wiki is very user friendly but if you give it too much info it can get confused. Try re-doing those citations by simply plugging in the DOI and see if that helps. Let me know if you have questions! --T. Danylevich (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Esther! The Professor pasted the link above to my peer review but here it is copy-and-pasted as well if that makes it easier. Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Ecl67 - Esther Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ecl67/sandbox? Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It does not at the moment directly mentioned gender bias in diagnosis/medical care. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is good as is, but if it's possible to mention gender bias in the lead that would be good. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does but it would be good to double check that it mentions any sections added. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Does not appear so. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is a good size, but if you can find a way to put in the gender bias part and any other sections you group is adding I think it would help. Lead evaluation

The lead wasn't a part of this sandbox, but it would be helpful to potentially include the sections this group is adding in the lead, but definitely not necessary if not possible.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, absolutely. Is the content added up-to-date? Everything seems to be good, the one thing I would double check is that for Source 3, the initiative is still going. It would also be helpful to mention the year of the study each time you bring up a study. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The section about non-human research could fit either where it is or be put in the "causes" section under "healthcare system", but it really fits in either place. The same goes for the next paragraph about physician bias, but again keeping it where it is also flows well and works. Content evaluation

Where will it fit in the main article when you transfer it? Between which sections, and will it be whole or will you split it up?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I could see. It seems to be presenting the facts of the matter without biasing the reader. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The section does a good job of not making it too-US-centric. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not. It only serves to inform and does so nicely. Tone and balance evaluation

Tone and balance are solid.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Just about. In the third paragraph, "A 2011 review article examined sex bias in biomedical research and found that while sex bias has decreased in human clinical trials, particularly since the US National Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, sex bias has increased in non-human studies." could use a citation. Everything else has a citation and the sources used are reliable, with several being from medical journals. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? I would double check mainly the ones from pre-2010, especially the one that talked about the initiative (I mentioned it earlier here). They are still good sources, but it would be good to mention the year the study was published if you draw any studies from them. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very well organized and easy to read Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't spot any grammatical errors Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It flows very well. I could even see this part being broken up into research bias and application bias, but it's definitely good as is too. Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No but they aren't necessary. Are images well-captioned? n/a Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a Images and media evaluation

n/a

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not at the moment New Article Evaluation

It could use some article links (which I personally am waiting to add until I move it to the real article space in case the links don't transfer)

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, absolutely What are the strengths of the content added? Everything has a citation, the section flows very nicely and is written in a neutral way. How can the content added be improved? I'd recommend looking at the main article and seeing where your information fits. Should it remain whole or should it be split and added to different parts of the article? I don't have an answer and I think it could go either way. Overall evaluation

Very well done!