User talk:Faithhsu13/Decolonization (medicine)

Peer Review
I was selected to peer review your article as part of my assignment.

Overall, I think you have written a great article, provided good supporting evidence and sources, and have summarized their points in a concise and readable format. I have a few specific comments below.

Lead - This summarizes your topics well that will be discussed throughout the article and provides a good amount of context. I don't know if you want to mention some of the techniques or risks/benefits in the lead or not, but that is an option as well. I would also include a citation or two for the lead sentences, so that you don't get in trouble for that.

Organization, flow, content - In the HISTORY paragraph, the third to last sentence reads, "Traditional preventative practices including using..." and I think it should say "included" instead. I also would probably talk more about what the REDUCE MRSA study found, rather than the details of how the study was performed. Up to you though. Overall the organization and flow makes sense, and you have appropriate subsections with headings to make that clear. I think you know this already, but I would expand the risk/complications paragraph by a few sentences, just discussing what problems can be caused by these procedures. And what problems can be caused if these procedures are NOT performed.

Links - You have a good handful of links provided to relevant topics that relate to your article. I think is is very good, and that you should include even more as you finish your article. This can come last, but is very helpful as a reader.

Images and Figures - Not sure how easy this would be, but consider adding an image or two if possible. Could be of the chemicals being used, or of the procedures being performed.

Citations/sources - Your citations look good to me. Make sure to include a References heading too to clearly delineate that section. But they all appear open and available to the public which is important as well. May need some additional in-text citations in the Medical Uses paragraph, but otherwise things look adequately cited. I don't see any evidence of plagiarism and I think you have done a very good job of summarizing everything in your own words.

Bias/Equal sided arguments - I think everything was very fairly written, with no accidental bias in your article. This seems to be a topic that isn't too controversial, but you've written about in a fair light regardless. All in all, very appropriate for wikipedia.

Overall, I think your article is great! You summarize the key points in a way that is accessible to the average reader. With a few additions and changes as above, I think it'll be a nicely finished article. Good job! ProdigalSheep (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources for you
Hi @Faithhsu13, I'm one of the volunteers with WikiProject Medicine, and I'm really looking forward to having your article in the mainspace. I've found four reviews citing the main study that you describe, all in decent journals. You should be able to see them on PubMed at this link. When a study has been cited in a review article, it's good to cite at least one of them. That makes it easier for other editors to see that the original study is accepted in the literature. (We do sometimes have problems with people cherry-picking sources with "unusual" results.)

Other than the possibility of adding one or more additional sources, the only advice I'd suggest to you is that we try to Cite sources, not describe them. This is a stylistic preference, rather than a matter of getting the facts straight. If you want to reduce your description of the study to align with that advice, then great. If you don't (or you're not quite sure), then don't worry about it. Either way, this is shaping up to be a great article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)