User talk:RWakely99/sandbox

creating a wikilink to Connaught Laboratories might be a good idea for extra clarity. Your style of writing is very clear and the Career section is very easy to follow. I also think a wikilink if possible to Heparin, what she tried to patent might be good, or possibly reworking the sentence so that the description of the method directly follows the word. --Redheadweek13 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
General Notes: A very well-worded, informative contribution that adheres to Wikipedia-style language. The entry could be more succinct, but not much more. In the introduction, with the link to Connaught Laboratories, the words "public health research institution" seem redundant.

Wswendt (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your article is informative and very clear, well done! In the last half of the career section you begin to use some jargon that people outside of biomedicine may not be familiar with, so I would suggest attaching wiki link or trying to clarify what these phrases/methods are. Other than that I think the article employs wikis concise language and is overall a neutral portrayal of the information. Megan Reyna (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your additions could use maybe one or two more sources to solidify the claims you are making. Your writing is very clear and can be easily understood by all. A couple of the terms within your addition like, "iatrogenic disease" could use linking or further explanation to provide the reader who may not know much about this topic with background information. Redheadweek13 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment about linking to other pages, especially under the Early Life section (i.e. linking the other people mentioned, if pages exist). In your final paragraph, you write, "He claimed in one publication that following his dietary regimen..." Is this one of Jensen's publications? If so, it may be valuable to mention it by name. Besides those small comments, your writing is clear and formatted appropriately for Wikipedia--great job! Sejohnson1 (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that this is after the deadline - I was wrongly under the impression that peer review had been cancelled with the change in deadlines. I wanted to contribute something anyways.

As I understand it chiropractic and alternative medicine is controversial; it seems that your sources are entirely from one side of this debate (the Bernard Jensen Foundation, Jensen's own writings, and a website that endorses chiropractic medicine). This article is already very strong, but, if possible, it would probably benefit from some more diverse references. Wswendt (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)