User talk:Ngcrawfo

Welcome!
Hello, Ngcrawfo, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Article draft
Hi. I moved your article back to your sandbox - as it stands, it isn't ready for mainspace, and probably shouldn't be a stand-alone article. As it currently stands, the Hericium article isn't so long that it would need a section spun off into a daughter article, nor is the information you're adding so detailed that it would unbalance that article.

The first thing you need to do is take the Editing Medical Topics training module. This is very important, because Wikipedia has special sourcing requirements for biomedical content. You can read about them in more detail at WP:MEDRS. The training module will help you navigate these requirements.

Your focus should be more on bioactivity, and less on "medicinal" uses. You can document the fact that something is used in traditional medicine, but you can't say "can be used to treat" or anything that implies effectiveness unless you have a proper review article from the medical literature. You can talk about the presence and production of bioactive compounds, but you should be very careful to differentiate bioactivity from actual healing ability.

Avoid statements that don't really say much. For example


 * The first sentence alludes to interesting things, but doesn't describe them. Almost all biosynthetic pathways are controlled this way, so you aren't saying anything noteworthy. The actual pathways might be interesting - if you want to talk about them, talk about them. But don't just say they exist.
 * The second sentence doesn't say much, and also lacks a source. Not much is known as of when? The source you used might help (since it would be dated) but even so, since Wikipedia articles evolve over time, without saying where you are in time, it's likely that this information will become out of date. In addition, you need to give credit to the person who reviewed the literature and came to this conclusion (or blame, if they got it wrong).

If you're going to create an "experimental evidence" section, you need to be very careful. For starters, you need to rely on secondary sources. While you may be able critique the studies, their methodologies, and the validity of their experimental design and statistical analyses, since Wikipedia articles are unsigned, there's no way for readers to evaluate your expertise. When you rely on secondary sources, you rely on experts, you rely on the peer review process, and you have a source that readers can consult and decide whether to trust.

In general, you don't want to discuss individual experiments or studies on Wikipedia. In some cases, a study is important from a historical perspective, but you should let secondary sources determine this, and use what they say to describe their importance. A study should never be used as a source about itself. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hericium, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Please read WP:MEDRS to understand the source quality needed for the encyclopedia. '' Zefr (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)