User talk:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound

MH comments 5/7
This version of the article is nearly (but not quite) there - good job on the editing in particular! However, there are a number of issues that need resolved before Friday.

1. The first, and most serious, is the Bloomberg Center section - right now, it is nearly a word-for-word recap of the 'About Us' page of the Bloomberg Center page. Without more of your own words, and especially without a citation, this is plagiarism. If you can't think of any other way to say it than the way they put it on the page, put it between quotation marks.

2. The section that really still needs work, as you're aware, is Prevention - I'd suggest a) merging the list of facts at the end into a couple of paragraphs and b) adding citations to those facts. As it stands, they don't really belong in the article, but the Epidemiology section provides a model for how they could be consolidated into a couple of well-cited paragraphs that do. (Also note that the Center for Gun Policy and Research has a Wiki page, so please add a crosslink.)

3. Please start editing the real Gunshot Wound Wiki page to make it match your draft version - you don't have time to put them all across without causing a stir, so I'd suggest picking your most well-sourced addition (Classification, maybe?) and least dramatic synthesis (either the Lead or the History section) and making those edits to the real page today.

4. As you know, please add your image by tomorrow.

Again, the editing is particularly good - with a resolved Prevention section, the image, and a couple of edits on the main page, you'll be in good shape. You're in the home stretch now! Let me know if you have any questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

MH comments 5/4
Progress is being made! You still have a ways to go, but this draft has provided the bones for what could be a workable article by Friday. Here are my suggestions for your next draft (due Wednesday afternoon, if you'd like another set of comments):

1. Make sure all the material you've added to the lead belongs there and not in the body of the article: see the Manual of Style for what to keep and what to move.

2. The Classification section needs more information to be accessible to a lay reader. I would suggest:
 * Adding examples with the appropriate Wikipedia links (for small-caliber handguns, for instance)
 * Explaining what Gustilo Anderson wounds are, either through an appropriate source or Wikipedia link
 * Is this the standard classification? If it is, say so, and if not, list the alternative systems used. Is this just for the US, or valid internationally?
 * Adding at least two more sources on gunshot wound classification. This could be to confirm or add greater detail to the system you've laid out here, or to outline an alternative classification.

3. Add citations to uncited facts. For example, the last paragraph in the 'Pathophysiology' section is uncited, and needs sources for its claims. The 'Abdomen' section is likewise light on citations. While multiple claims can come from the same source, no claim should be without a source.

4. Make sure the new structure hangs together. For instance, the 'Chest' section refers to a 'Workup' section that no longer exists.

5. Find a way of simplifying highly technical sections, such as the 'Chest' section. For example, does knowing that persistent air leaking is bad really contribute to the reader's understanding of gunshot wounds? Propose a way of summarizing the interventions described in a more generally useful way.

6. Add at least one other source to the Long-Term Effects section - you need more than one study in order to be able to make the claim that 'Studies show'. Hopkins could be useful here.

7. The Prevention section needs more methods of prevention: is gun control the only option? What about education, mitigation, bulletproof vests, etc.? Also, avoid trying to summarize the gun control debate in one sentence, as it's a very complex and international issue. Instead, write a few sentences name-checking the major themes, with links to the relevant pages ('gun control', 'gun control in the US', 'arms trade', '2nd Amendment of the US Constitution', etc.).

8. The 'History' section could use reduction in some places (why is there so much detail on Coolidge? Find the take-home message of this story and say it more concisely), as well as reorganization. Also, why is it at the end of the article? Consider the placement of the sections, and compare to similar articles for reference.

9. Improving images was one of the weekly assignments. Find an additional image, not necessarily of a wound; it could be of a chart, for example. If you can't find one that's open-source, email the owner for permission and CC me, and I'll count it as included.

10. There is no reference to Hopkins anywhere in the article, and only one source from the University - Hopkins realistically needs to appear in the main text. If this is completely impossible, then it needs to dominate the reference list (at least 1/4 of total references).

11. In addition to the style guides referenced above, also go through the 'Writing Better Articles' guide and use it as a checklist.

This may look like a lot, but you are trying to compress a month's worth of work here - this draft has provided a foothold from which to create a workable article, and you still have time! I suggest dividing it up by section or work type (referencing vs. adding new material). You may want to designate hour blocks just to make sure you both don't try to save at once, as it'll lose your work if you do. Otherwise, all the edits are visible, labelled, and can be restored from the 'Revision history' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

MH comments
You've taken on a challenge by choosing an article that's already fairly well developed - it'll take substantially more revision to make it your own. As it stands, there's not enough here to count as a full project.

1. All of the facts listed above the 'Contents' box need citations. Given the length of the article, it also isn't clear where exactly you'd fit these in (maybe in the 'Management' section?) - for your next draft, please copy over the entire article so that your additions appear in context.

2. Similarly, once you place these in context, think about what they add to the purpose of the article. Who is the reader you have in mind? Is your goal to tell people how to treat gunshot wounds? To discuss societal perceptions of gunshot wounds? It's a big topic, so you may want to choose a few angles and develop these more thoroughly.

3. Of the sections you've presented here, I think the 'Prevention' section has the most potential for expansion. For example, you could describe the 'interpretations' of the Second Amendment you refer to (citing particular court cases) and the back-and-forth about using federal funds to study gun violence (citing a range of news articles.) Do you see this as going in the 'Epidemiology' section? If so, it might be useful to look into restrictions on federal funding for gun violence studies and the related controversy.

4. The connection to Hopkins is not at all clear from this draft, and is an essential part of the assignment. This should be possible to develop, but if you find that it can't be done, you can pick another topic - it's a bit late for this, but if necessary, I'll work with you to get it up to speed.

Unfortunately, I can't give more detailed suggestions until this project is substantially more developed. With this in mind, take a look at your peer reviews, and if you can have a second draft completed by 4/11, I'll provide another round of comments. Alternatively/additionally, if you'd like to set up a discussion meeting, just email me.