User talk:DeusetScientia

Hi! It's nice to meet you! I hope to learn new things about environmental disruptors from your articles. CiKay (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work![edit]

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. DeusetScientia (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeusetScientia, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi DeusetScientia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DeusetScientia, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles[edit]

When editing articles related about medical-related topics, please bear in mind is that the standards for citations for these is higher than the general standard for sources in Wikipedia articles. Focus more on review articles and less on the latest discoveries. Findings like these are very difficult for a non-expert to put in the proper context without synthesizing a whole body of research literature. While we encourage the use of secondary and tertiary sources in general, this is especially important in medical-related topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very nice job[edit]

...on the Endrin page today. yes the 1984 outbreak deserves its own subsection I agree with you. again very nice work. thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele Thanks a lot! I really appreciate it. --DeusetScientia (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Bridget1957 For EDD (Hake)[edit]

NOTE: I first did this on the talk page for Endrin, if you would like to check the date it was originally added. The peer review is still there

Overall: This was a very good article; it was strong and informative. The large majority of the information was relevant, properly organized, properly cited, and interesting. The headings and subheadings made the article easy to understand. There was a good amount of links to other Wikipedia articles, which will be extremely helpful for other readers. Also, the article was well formatted and I did not find many grammatical/spelling errors. In general, I could not detect bias throughout the article.

Section Above Table of Contents: I believe this should be shortened/moved to other places within the article. At this point, I think the section above the Table of Contents should be just a brief introduction of Endrin, with more substantial information moved below. The third paragraph, talking about endrin's classification, could possibly be moved to the "Regulation" section. Possibly include a "Structure and Basic Information" type of section to fit the rest of the information.

History: The History section is overall very good and informative. However, I would change the sentence "Shell International was licensed in the United States and in the Netherlands to produce it." as I believe it is unclear if whether if just the Netherlands, or both the Netherlands and the United States produced it.

Production: This was relevant and to the point. Additionally, the links that lead to other Wikipedia articles within this section will help readers understand this difficult portion of the article. I do not think anything needs to be changed/edited in this section.

Use: I do not think that the last paragraph (which talks about the study performed in 1981 to 1983) belongs in this section. Possibly leave the mention of it being used as rodenticide, but the rest of it should be moved to possibly the History or Regulation section.

Health Effects: I do not think the paragraph about metabolism belongs here, and may best be moved to a "Basic Information" type of section. Additionally, I believe the section about "1984 poisoning outbreak in Pakistan" should be placed in the History section. I also think the information regarding the 1984 Pakistan outbreak can be condensed.

Environmental Behavior: Although I find the information regarding the removal from the environment very interesting, I believe it could be edited slightly to be more easily understood by someone who is not well-versed in scientific language. Once again, good job on including links to other Wikipedia articles!

Regulation: The "Regulation" section is very well done, good job obtaining information about a country other than the United States. The information was stated in a very neutral manner and did not appear to show any bias.

 Bridget1957 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]