User talk:Rothschild.e

Welcome
Hello, Rothschild.e and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! MPS1992 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review Feedback
I think you did a very good job of identifying what kind of information would improve the existing article but you could go further in elaborating on that information and fully filling in the holes that you have identified. I'll give specific examples of that in a bit. You also did a good job writing in an encyclopedic tone, staying neutral and presenting information cleanly.

There are two stylistic suggestions I want to mention before getting to content. The first is that citations should come after punctuation as this is standard on Wikipedia and follows the example set in the article that you are improving. The second is to avoid saying things like "Surveys show that..." or "A recent study done by..." Just give the conclusion of the research and cite where you got the information from. Who did the research or how it was conducted is usually irrelevant for this type of article.

In your section on the nations that permit DTC section, you should be more specific in your description of the current state of things in the US. This is the most important part of the section for most people reading it but you only give specifics about previous versions of the regulations. You should say how and why the regulations were relaxed so that the reader knows the current situation. Also, explain why most ads are not sent to the FDA for pre-approval. I was pretty shocked when I read that and it merits discussion. It would also be good to give an overview of the state of things in New Zealand and Brazil to avoid the article being too US-centric. It could also be helpful to give an overview of why and when other nations outlawed the practice.

Your Types of Ads section should have a citation for those definitions. Even with that, the section does not feel like it actually provides much information. It's odd to state that the different types of ads have different regulations without explaining what the differences are. If you can find this information, it would also be interesting to know any difference in how the types are used and how effective each one is.

In the original article, I would suggest removing the "Controversy in the U.S." section header and make "Potential Benefits" and "Potential Harms" their own sections. This would be a much better reflection of what they are about because harms and benefits themselves are not controversy. Conflict over DTCs is already covered in the previous section. Making sections for benefits and harms would also allow you to make subsections within them, which would make the article much easier to read and parse through. They would also benefit from you including all of the ideas you have in your outline.

In the benefits section, I think you should remove the "This shows a correlation..." sentence from the existing article since it's a ridiculous claim with no factual backing. For the first sentence in your current "Controversy in the US" section, you should cite a source in which someone gives that argument. You can't claim that an argument is made without proof.

If you make separate benefits and harms sections, your last section on patient-doctor relationships could be split between them. Right now it is difficult to make it through the paragraph. Try to clearly delineate different ideas by making smaller paragraphs and, if necessary, creating subsections.

Overall, I think your draft is good but is slightly shorter than the other articles I have seen. There are a few places where you have information that just needs to be expanded upon, so I am excited to see your final product. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jamesonoreilly (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)