User talk:Nicoespi

Welcome!
Hello, Nicoespi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!


Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Ian Furst (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

ORN pathophys section
Thank you for the excellent update on the pathophys section. A couple of things for improvement if you have time; Ping me if you want someone to take a look. Nice work! Ian Furst (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Our normal style is less formal, and needs to be simplified. You've written to a grad student level.
 * 2) I really liked the intro section which explained why radiation is used, and what it does to tissues. It would be helpful to add links to other articles for each item you can.
 * 3) The frequent references to Bob Marx; normally we don't name drop the authors like in scientific articles.  The section about 2000-2004 should likely start "Prior to 2004...", then a brief summary of what was previously thought. Then "Current research..." or something like that, keeping in mind this section may not be updated for another 10 years.


 * Thanks for your comments Ian! I'm making small edits throughout the post to try and make the language more user friendly, and using other articles as guides for this. Unfortunately it's a really complicated disease so I don't think I'll be able to make it much more simplistic but I'll give it a shot! Regarding the name dropping, the papers where I'm naming the authors were sentinel, game changing papers. While they're not necessarily world famous, do you think it is still worth removing their names? I can remove it if you feel that would fit in most with other Wiki pages, let me know. Nicoespi (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one rewriting, so I leave it to your discretion re names. It's meaningful to you and me, but maybe not to a patient with ORN - they are just trying to understand what's happening.  Take a look at MRONJ, or Oral cancer for comparisons.  There's a constant debate at what level to write, but the consensus seems to be high schoolish (although User:Soupvector would probably argue for the level you've completed it at.   FYI; my colleague had a patient in today with new onset ORN, but the patient was getting in the car before he showed me the imaging.   Will see if he'll come back for some pics.  Ian Furst (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those references, I liked their form of writing so I'll try to model it after them. Regarding the new patient, that would be ideal if you could get images of them or others. I'm having trouble finding solid, copyright compatible images for this page - it would be way more useful for patients to see that than an MRI. Thanks for your continued advice and support Dr. Furst! --Nicoespi (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the advice! I wanted to add a quick note to this: I saw that some of the sources you used were studies. These are seen as primary sources and per the sourcing guidelines for medicine and health related articles, they need to be accompanied by a secondary reliable source in order to be used. The reason for this is that the study and its findings were conducted by the study's authors, so a secondary source is needed to help verify the claims and also put them into context, since studies can typically only survey a small portion of a given population. Another reason is that the publisher really only checks for major errors with the study that would immediately invalidate it - they don't provide context and it's still possible for faulty or even outright false research to make it through the review and editorial processes.
 * That said, you can use some information such as literature reviews that are in the study - the only catch is that we can't use the parts that discuss the existing literature in relation to the study. By this I mean things like "Results from X and Y papers indicate that our theory of Z is very likely."
 * I hope that this helps - all that you would really need to do to resolve this is just add a secondary source that covers the study or the portion of the study that you're including in the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)