Talk:SENSOR-Pesticides

Comments

Added some more sections today, but I'm still working on it. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Added more content. I know the references are not in the correct format; I plan to correct this after I have finished adding content.Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think it deserved to be bumped to C class at this point. However, I encourage more experienced Wikipedians to modify as necessary.Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the "Case definition" subsection back in, though it's much shorter now than it was originally. With surveillance programs, it's important to include the case definition that is used to define and collect cases, because a different case definition could arguably lead to different data. I've shortened and simplified it so that it doesn't have all the jargon or seem like a "how-to" section. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that case definitions are important to the work you do with SENSOR-Pesticides, but that fact alone does not merit inclusion in a WP article. Primary sources aren't seen as sufficient for sourcing, but secondary sources—especially those independent of the subject—are solid. For example, I saw the JAMA publication highlighted aspects of SENSOR-Pesticides (by editors allowing some SENSOR-Pesticides self-citations). (I haven't perused it to see if it mentions case definitions.) Please consider using the publication (as it is the best evidence I have seen of SENSOR's notability) as a guide for what things others will care about. You can simply site the JAMA article for these statements about SENSOR, without citing the primary sources directly. I'm not arguing against the case definition section itself at this point, just trying to help you understand how this place works, as you are coming into editing this article as an insider of SENSOR-Pesticides. Thanks. Wervo (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Right now, the sentence "The article generated significant media coverage.[22][23][24]" is a WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR sentence because of the word significant, in my opinion. The word significant was not in any media source I saw cited. I have removed it with this edit. Wervo (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find more sources for that, since my supervisor said it generated "significant" coverage - unfortunately, he's out of the office. If I can find more sources, I'll modify accordingly.Mmagdalene722 (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. Yes, for content to be here, it needs to be verified by reliable sources. Wervo (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

As one can verify with today's featured article, the ultimate goal here is to have no spaces between inline citations (the numbers given to notes or references) on WP. So please do not revert this formatting, as it is standard. Formatting when it comes to citing sources varies, but links to full text journal articles and doi's are very helpful. Adding doi's to appropriate sources like this doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001 at the end of journal article references would strengthen the references. Wervo (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through and add doi's as soon as I'm finished with the bulk of the article, as I'd rather go through and do them all at once. It'll be time-consuming, for sure, so don't worry about it - I'll take care of it. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I thought it would be best to bring any concerns about conflicts of interest out in the open. I am currently working with the SENSOR-Pesticides program through a one-year fellowship provided by non-profit public health organization. I am not a permanent employee of NIOSH, and my fellowship stipend is provided by the outside organization. This article was originally created by the fellow who held my position last year, and my supervisor has requested that I expand and improve the article so as to raise the article's rating on the quality scale.

I believe the potential for bias here is minimal, as SENSOR is a surveillance research program with no regulatory authority and minimal public visibility. However, I understand that there is still potential for a COI issue, which is why I added the article to the US Government project (to make it visible to other users in the project) and why I have solicited the advice and assistance of other users (e.g. Wervo). Also, if the ultimate goal is to raise the article's quality rating, then it arguably has to be approved by other users as using NPOV. I'd also like to point out that in writing the "Pesticide use in schools" subsection, I specifically drew attention to an news article that quoted criticism of the paper in question.

I apologize for not saying anything until now, but I'm very new to the Wikipedia community, and I only just now read found the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. My thanks to the user who brought it my attention. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)