User talk:Xyz789abc123

Welcome!
Hello, Xyz789abc123, 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) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your article draft. As you're working on this, keep in mind that since this is a medical topic, you need to abide by sourcing requirements for biomedical topics.

I'm going to go into depth for the first section, but a lot of this should generalize to the other sections.
 * History section
 * I'm a little unsure what you're plan is here. Since there doesn't appear to be a history section, why do you start with breast cancer? Shouldn't you start with a more general overview?
 * Try to make the account more straightforward. Make sure you aren't adding filler - what's the added benefit of "a decade later", when you've said 1963 and 1976? Avoid phrases like "destroying cancer relics" - that's not neutral, encyclopedic writing. Bear in mind that not all your readers are going to share your background, and metaphorical language might not always translate, even among native English speakers).
 * If you are just planning to focus on breast cancer, you need to make sure that what you're writing is relevant to that disease. More general statements should be in a more general section.
 * Since this is a medical topic, it is critical that you rely on secondary sources. You can't use Bonadonna (1976) as a source to write about the significance of Bonadonna (1976). The DeVita article looks fine, since it's about a historical topic, the requirement that the source be less than five years old doesn't apply.
 * Your third and fourth sources are just DOIs. You need fully-formatted references. If you aren’t sure how to do this, please revisit the section of the training module beginning on this page.
 * Your third reference is both too old (1985) and a primary source. So again, this isn't the kind of thing you should be using.
 * Wikipedia articles don't use honorifics like "Dr".
 * References go after punctuation, not before.
 * Only capitalize proper nouns.

Beyond this section, a few more specifics Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Quotation marks should only be used for actual quotations. Don't use them to highlight words or as scare quotes.
 * Never give medical advice, or anything that might resemble medical advice. For example, saying "cisplatin-based treatment is typically recommended" gets a bit close; instead, if it's recommended by a specific body, say so. If it's most commonly used, say that. But still be as explicit as possible in attributing this claim.
 * Don't use sites like "medpagestoday.com". Don't cite a page like this ohttps://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2017/adjuvant-chemo-colorectal this, even if it comes from a reputable body. You should be working off better, more scholarly sources than this.
 * Avoid jargon. "Non-inferior" isn't plain English.
 * Make sure your use of quotes is minimal. Don't quote what you can effectively paraphrase.

Much detail in the advice here. Be sure to incorporate it RJBazell (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't use Medscape as a source for medical recommendations. It is a commercial venture. The American Cancer Society (cancer.org) and the National Cancer Institute (cancer.gov) are OK as are review articles in major publications such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of The American Society of Clinical Oncology RJBazell (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Further response
Looks good. In the "Controversy" section there are several statements that can't be tied to a source directly (they're after the last reference in a paragraph), so from a Wikipedia perspective they count as unsourced. So that needs fixing. I also wonder about the word "motif" - is there a simpler word you could use? It's a term that might be unfamiliar to some readers that isn't a technical term. Not a big deal, but simpler is often better in writing for Wikipedia, since it makes it more accessible. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adjuvant therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bernard Fisher ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Adjuvant_therapy check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Adjuvant_therapy?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)