User talk:Elpardack/sandbox

Neutral Point of View
The chemophobia page is riddled with controversy, so props to you for taking it on. I recommend stating the controversy of the term to acknowledge that Wikipedia itself may not decide how the term should be treated (medically or not). It is also helpful to the reader to understand the two sides of this term as well. Alongside acknowledging the two sides, try to make the page itself as neutral as possible, which I understand can be hard. I'd also want to make the page in my mental image, but that is not the goal. For example, the paragraph starting "The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry defines chemophobia as an "irrational fear of chemicals".[1] " appears to place the term as "irrational," but stating (even right before this sentence) there are multiple sides, eliminates some one-sidedness.

Examples
Under Causes and Effects, you state vaccinations, which appears to just be a statement against its it. I think if you're going to expand on this major example, you should do it with other examples you have as well. I personally wanted more examples. However, again keep the neutral point of view. On the other side of that, you may not need to expand much on the examples at all considering you may just cite them, in which case, maybe the vaccination section isn't too necessary.

Treatment and Prevention
As was stated before, this seems somewhat sudden. Is it necessary, or can you expand or link here?Anthpulido (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
So, this will be somewhat a refresher on what we talked about in class seeing as we covered a lot of the main issues of your article already.I know you didn't write all the sections of the article but I would watch out for your own or previous editors' word choice.

A lot of the times the neutral point of view is trying to be maintained by offering both sides of the argument, but the word choice is such that one side is clearly taken not as seriously than the other. For example, when it is stated that some chemophobia is rooted in "irrational notions" and then fiction is compared to religion which might be a bad idea in a public forum.

I know you didn't write that first sentence in the first sentence in your Cause and Effect section but it might be interesting to go back and see what the actual quote from Pierre Laszlo is.

For the vaccination section, I felt that it was written with an agenda and I think its your decision to either keep it and see if there will be any haters or just try to change some wording. The only example you give here is people being chemophobic in an irrational situation which gives the impression that all chemophobes derive their fear from invalid facts.

I would also get rid of or expand the mention of argichemicals. It is a very interesting topic but you can't sum up the effects of chemicals in or food industry in one sentence.

Chamberlaindan09 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)