Wikipedia:BMJ/Reviewer tutorial

Basic wiki editing tutorial
Please complete this tutorial before commencing your review. You'll find it easier to get yourself set up as a reviewer if you use a laptop or desktop computer - the Wikipedia site works differently on tablets and mobile phones. Also, a computer makes it simple to flip back and forth between two open browser windows or tabs. It's just easier to set up initially usiing a computer.
 * Create an account; e.g., "Mary Bloggs (BMJ reviewer)"
 * Create your "user page". (The user page is where people go to find out who you are.)
 * Click on your red user name at the top of the page. (If you don't see it, refresh the page.)
 * Click "Start the User: (your name) page"
 * Add your main affiliation/s and what you're doing here - something like, "I'm a researcher at y institution and I've been asked to check Wikipedia's article on Parkinson's disease for balance, accuracy, completeness and up-to-dateness by BMJ."
 * At the bottom of the page click "Save page."
 * Say "hello" to Anthony - BMJ's main contact at Wikipedia - on his "user talk page." (You can talk about pretty much anything on a user's talk page.)
 * Follow this link (User talk:Anthonyhcole) and at the top of the page click "New section."
 * Give the new section a headline ("Hi Anthony!" or whatever) and say a few words in the big text box beneath the headline.
 * Type four tildes (~) at the end of your message, like this: ~ That will sign your message with links to your "user page" and your "user talk page." Try to remember to always sign your comments by ending with four tildes. For this signing feature to work, you must be logged in to Wikipedia, so make sure you are logged in before each session.
 * Introduce yourself on the "article talk page." (The article's talk page is for focussed discussion of the article.)
 * Go to the article, Parkinsons disease
 * Click the "Talk" tab at the top left of the page (next to the "Article" tab)
 * Go to the section titled "BMJ reviewers" at the foot of the page
 * Click [edit]
 * Say Hi to Anthony, and Looie496. Looie will be the main editor responding to your review. Say a little about yourself. Maybe greet any of your fellow reviewers who have already posted. Sign with four tildes. And save.

What is a Wikipedia medical article?
Our audience is the average general reader, who may have difficulty accessing or understanding the professional literature, so we use simple language where doing so won't introduce ambiguity. The three fundamental policies that govern Wikipedia content are: In a nutshell, Wikipedia does not publish original thought. An article may not contain any new analysis, or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources upon which the article relies. Any material likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using inline citation. Articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all significant views covered by current reliable overviews of a topic. Where there are conflicting views in the literature, we aim to describe them, not resolve them, and we try to indicate their relative prominence, and avoid giving a false impression of parity.
 * No original research
 * Verifiability
 * Neutral point of view

The types of sources Wikipedia deems to be reliable are described in the guideline, Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

Ideal sources include, among others, literature reviews and systematic reviews published in reputable journals, recognised standard textbooks written by topic experts, and medical guidelines and position statements from national and international expert bodies. We rarely cite primary sources such as individual randomised controlled trials.

The medical manual of style describes, among other things, the sections typically found in Wikipedia disease articles.

For safety reasons, we never include dosage information.

The reviewer's task
We'd like your thoughts on
 * Accuracy and up-to-dateness: All assertions should clearly express the current scholarly and professional consensus. If expert opinion is significantly divided, this should be described.
 * Comprehensiveness: We try to include at least a summary of all important aspects of a topic.
 * Weight/emphasis: We try to devote space to each aspect of a topic according to its relative importance. Tangental or neighbouring topics are best addressed by linking the reader to a devoted article. Fringe views receive attention commensurate with their level of support in the academic community. Often this means no mention at all.

The review process

 * Please list on the article's talk page your criticisms or suggestions for improvement. (We'll create a section for your critique when you complete this wiki editing tutorial.)
 * Wikipedia editors will respond to your comments by implementing your suggestion or, if they want clarification or convincing, they will engage you in discussion beneath the relevant criticism.
 * A section of the article talk page will be set aside for unstructured discussion exclusively among the reviewers, should you wish to use it.
 * If a Wikipedia editor or another reviewer challenges an assertion you make, please point them to a current, authoritative, reliable source that supports your position.
 * Questions about the appropriate weight to give to an aspect of the topic, or about what aspects deserve inclusion might be resolved by seeing how much emphasis is typically given to those aspects in other current reliable overviews of Parkinson's disease.
 * When all reviewers agree a version of the article - or at least those parts of it that are covered by their area of expertise - is up-to-date, accurate, balanced and comprehensive, we'll add a link to that version to the bottom of the discussion and close the review as successful. If that consensus can't be reached in a reasonable time - say, a week or two - we'll close the review as failed.

Conflict of interest
A competing interest—often called a conflict of interest—exists when one's judgment concerning a primary interest (such as achieving an accurate, unbiased article) may be affected by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). Readers should know about any competing interests that reviewers may have. We are not aiming to eradicate such interests; they are almost inevitable.

Before you begin your review, please declare on your user page any conflicting interests you may have, or any interests that might reasonably be viewed by some as possibly conflicting with the goal of producing an accurate, unbiased article.