User talk:Iswwiki/sandbox

= Peer Review (added 4/5/18) =

Overall, I think you have done an amazing job with this article. It is clear you have really researched the topic and added a wealth of new information on such an important figure in cancer history. My biggest comments are 1. Citations!!! I remember one training module said basically every sentence should have a citation. Especially when you use quotations, citations should be included! 2. Tone: You have a very narrative-like tone, which is great for things like news articles, but I think Wikipedia is a very facts-based and informative source, so the writing should be simple, clear, and straightforward. 3. Content: It looks like you are rewriting the whole article, which is fine, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to leave some of the original content just so it’s easier for you as well.

Here are my specific notes for each section:

1) Lede

- “Stemming from his career as a practicing surgeon, Coley was motivated to develop a tumor-regressor treatment after witnessing several of his first patients lose their lives to metastatic bone sarcoma.” - In my opinion, this is a little too descriptive for a lede. Perhaps it can go in a later section? It also needs a citation!

- “In 1891, Coley first injected the treatment into one of his patients based on his own inclination that provoking an immune response to bacteria would result in tumor regression.” - This is a bit wordy; delete “based on his own inclination”; also needs citation!

- “for his contributions to the science” - can you be more specific? otherwise I would just say “for his contributions”

- make sure the last two sentences of the lede have citations!

2) Biography - Great expansion!

3) Education

- Citation for “William Coley was born on January 12, 1862, in Westfield, Connecticut, to Horace Bradley Coley and Clarina B. Wakeman.”

- Citation for last sentence of education: “After his schooling, Coley joined the surgical team at the New York Hospital.“

4) Early sarcoma patients

- “a 17-year-old patient who would later go on to inspire Coley to search for better methods of treating sarcoma.” - delete “go on to”

- “Dashiell visited Coley after suffering from a hand injury which he soon discovered to be an aggressive bone tumor. “ - comma between injury and which

- Add a link for sarcoma? Also can the word “sarcoma” be plural? I feel that it should be plural in the places that you use it, i.e. “Treatment for sarcoma at the time was scarce;”

- Explain that Elizabeth went by “Bessie”

- Make sure everything is cited!!!

5) Search for a better treatment

- Perhaps rename to “search for a better treatment for sarcomas” so it is more specific

- delete extra period after “being diagnosed with erysipelas, now known as Streptococcus pyogenes.[5]. “

- “Coley, inflicted with an inclination that Stein's case” is a bit awkward of phrasing - maybe just “Coley, who hypothesized that Stein’s case”

6) Developing Coley’s toxins

- “In 1891, he began his experiments on a patient named Zola, an Italian immigrant and drug-addict with a life-threatening tumor which he described as "the size of a small hen's egg" in his right tonsil.” - this reads a bit like a narrative; I would cut the Italian immigrant and drug-addict part. You also need citations, especially for anything in quotes.

7) Emergence and popularity of radiation therapy

- Can you explain more of Coley’s contributions here? Otherwise I’m not sure if this section is necessary.

- Grammar error: obsolete to the of radiation technology in cancer treatment

8) Commercialization and current use of Coley’s toxins

- “it has only been able to be prescribed through experimental clinical trials, which have produced mix results.” - should be mixed results

- Can you explain why “new drug” is a bad label? Kmm257 (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

= Peer Review =

This is a really good start. In particular, I think you made a great decision to restructure the article and add to the lead. On that note, however, I think you should probably think about renaming the "Search for a better treatment" section. If a reader were just skimming the article, they would have no idea what that was about. I think you should consider changing it to a more specific, informative section title because this one might be a little too vague. That is probably my only significant complaint. Besides from that, the article reads very well and has a good encyclopedic tone. Great stuff!

= Peer Review = I think you did a great job renaming the sections and subsections, especially in breaking down the super vague "Biography" section into more specific sections like "Early life and career", "Education", etc. This will help readers navigate the article much more efficiently and make the article reflect the formats of other biographical Wikipedia articles.

I noticed that you also added a lot to the lead of the article, which was initially very sparse. However, I think your revised version is now a bit too detailed and goes too much into specifics rather than painting a broad picture of who Coley was and why he is important. For example, the details on why he was initially motivated to develop a tumor-regressor treatment and what year he first injected the treatment into patients seems unnecessarily specific for the lead. I think these details would fit much better later in the article when you can elaborate further on this treatment, perhaps a section of its own. For the lead, try sticking to the big, most important things about Coley: who he was, why he is important, and what his lasting legacy is. For example, I think the last part you added about him now being known as the "Father of Immunotherapy" is a great since it talks about his lasting legacy in just a sentence. Be picky about what main ideas about Coley are important enough for the lead, and save the rest for the more detailed sections that come later. --Gqcwiki (talk)

Content Gaps Discussion
Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them? What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?

-I think content gaps are the areas of Wikipedia that have relatively little to no information. These pages would likely be the ones that are labeled as needing more information and have little information or sources contributed to it. Of course there content gaps are likely to happen on Wikipedia, its impossible for every single concept or thing to covered thoroughly. Plus, new information is compiled every day as well as new ideas, people, things, and places. To remedy these inevitable gaps, I believe Wikipedia should keep track of what is being searched more of with time, and they should work hard to assign contributors and editors to these articles and to other subjects that need to be more thoroughly reviewed.

Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?

-It does matter who writes on Wikipedia. To avoid a reputation of being a careless source of illegitimate information, Wikipedia should work hard to ensure that their editors and contributors have the website's best interest at heart. Contributors should be unbiased of the subject and willing to consistently update and improve their writing and the writings of others to make sure that Wikipedia is striving to provide the best and most reliable information to the public.

What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?

To be unbiased on Wikipedia is slightly different than what I consider to be biased in the real world. For example, when I think of bias I tend to think of someone having negative feelings against that subject; however, on Wikipedia any stance that is not completely neutral, whether it be in a negative or positive light, is considered to be biased. Although it has a much stricter form on this platform, I find it reassuring because it is a source for educating the masses and should most definitely be free from any unwarranted opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iswwiki (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Article evaluation
I decided to evaluate the Wikipedia entry for the lumpectomy, which I was surprised to find was very underdeveloped.

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? ''' -Yes, everything is related to the article topic. However, I feel that it talks more about its means of diagnosis than of treatment, which is what the lumpectomy is all about.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? ''' -The article remains neutral. It does make the claim that the lumpectomy is a less physically and emotionally damaging treatment than the full mastectomy; however, I feel like at this point in time this is accepted as fact in the scientific community.

'''Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? ''' -I think there should maybe be a brief history of how the lumpectomy came to be from an anti-mastectomy movement.

'''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? ''' -I found that all but one citation were reliable and appropriately cited from scientific journals and other reliable sources. The other links to a social network site, which I edited as unreliable to the article.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? ''' -No, all of the information seems to be current. However, I feel like six or so sources for such a broad topic could be greatly expanded.

'''Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? ''' -The Talk page of the article proved that it is used for many medical discussions as a reliable source, which is why I believe it should be expanded upon and improved.

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? ''' -The article is rated well. It is a part of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Women's Health, two projects that seem to be pretty significant for this platform, since it contains a large amount of medical information.

'''How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? ''' -I think the way Wikipedia discusses this definitely neglects the history of the procedure and its roots. I believe that we definitely spent a good amount of time to understand the transition from the radical Halsted mastectomy to the lumpectomy with radiation, but I see very few signs of this explanation on the page. Maybe there is a different page better suited for this history but I believe it should still be mentioned for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iswwiki (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)