Talk:Berkeley Free Clinic

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Cooperatives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshneelKrishna, Wackybanana, Alisha Soares, Hgoossen. Peer reviewers: Jeremie27471, JennWen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional editing

Please do not insert promotional edits, such as "if you want to volunteer, call x". this is an encyclopedia article, not a free adspace. I am a big booster of the free clinic, but this is NOT the place to do so. providing sourced information on notable aspects of the clinic, such that a routine wp reader may want to know, is enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berkeley Free Clinic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629123419/http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/pages/about-us to http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/pages/about-us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page Edits

I am a pharmacy student and, along with three of my peers, am planning on editing this Wikipage during the next couple weeks. See below for our proposed edits with citations:

1. Add a Services Section: (Acute Primary Medical Care, Tuberculosis Testing, Dental Services, HIV + STI Testing, Hepatitis Testing + Counseling, Womens’, Trans, and Gender non-conforming services, Peer Counseling, Eyeglasses and Vision Screenings) Cite: http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/services-overview/

2. Expand on History

a.	Mission statement. Cite: http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/clinic-history/
b.	Founders
c.	Member of National Association of Free and Charitable Clinics. Cite: http://www.nafcclinics.org/content/berkeley-free-clinic 
d.	“Origin myth” of the opening of Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic spurred opening of numerous other free clinics. Cite: https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/919537624.html?FMT=ABS 
e.	Who the Volunteers Are. Cite: http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/all-section-overview/
f.	Financial Difficulty in 2011 and growing number of patients. Cite: https://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/berkeley-free-clinic-faces-tough-times/Content?oid=2394723

3. Add in Ten Sections of Clinic

a.	Dental Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/dental-section
b.	Funding Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/funding-section
c.	Gay Men’s Health Collective http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/gay-mens-health
d.	Hepatitis Testing, Education, and Vaccination Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/hep-tev
e.	HIV Prevention Services Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/hiv-prevention-services
f.	Information Resource Collective http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/information-resources
g.	Lab Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/lab-section
h.	Medical Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/medical-section
i.	Peer Counseling Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/peer-counseling-1
j.	Saturday Services Section http://www.berkeleyfreeclinic.org/womens-trans-section

4. Planned Expansions

a.	Offering Services to undocumented immigrants. Cite: http://www.dailycal.org/2017/04/10/berkeley-free-clinic-offers-undocumented-community-members-free-dental-services/
b.	Obtaining a larger center to operate. Cite: https://futurebfc.org/

Other sources to cite: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sather/the-berkeley-free-clinic-still-going-strong/ http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2007-05-04/article/26988 http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2000-12-09/article/2571

Propositions open to comment. Wackybanana (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy Student Peer Reviews

Peer Review by Group 12:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify...

This group did a great job of presenting their additions in a neutral, succinct, and clear manner. Even at one point while reading their edits, I thought there might have been some biased introduced while reading how the Berkeley clinic works “to treat and value their patients with dignity and respect,” but they provided a reference for it! They were able to detail the duties of the hepatitis team there, and added information about the patient population they serve (including trans, gender non-conforming, and undocumented immigrants), which is very relevant! They added detailed sections regarding a number services that Berkeley free clinic provides, and made note of their future plans to move and upgrade their facility. They did a good job of staying non-biased as they presented new information to the Berkeley Free Clinic page. Kstancyk (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... I think this group did a wonderful job making points that were verifiable with cited secondary sources, mostly because they presented well known facts in a way that fit the topic extremely well. I was impressed by the fact that their facts were not just verifiable by the source that they cited, but by other reliable sources that I looked up on my own as well. I would advise that for the final edits, if they chose to add more specific details that could only be found on one reliable source, to be careful about remaining neutral and paraphrasing in a way that conveys the facts accurately. nisha.iyer112 (talk) 7:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Edits are formatted based on Wikipedia's manual of style. All edits are followed by citation and show neutral standpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madiha210 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC) There are few discrepancies in citation: Citation #12 is missing the title. Format for date is not correct for a few citations. Date should be formatted as YYYY/MM/DD. There are duplicate citation, for example, #1 and #5; they can be reconciled. There are citations from the same website (Berkley Free Clinic) citing different pages which can be reconciled using Citing multiple pages of the same source section of Wikipedia:Citing sources. Madiha210 (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify... I reviewed the short excerpts for each of the different services that were added to the page and compared the current wiki text to that of the Berkeley Free Clinic website. Despite most of the information coming from the same main source site, there was no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. The editors for these sections were meticulous in re-wording/re-phrasing their ideas but still containing the most relevant, important information for this particular wiki article. However, I would suggest that each of the sections remain consistent in regards to the amount of information they provide. For example, for all the other services the days of operation were provided but were not provided for peer counseling. If you are to include information on dates/times of operation then please include it for all services for consistency purposes. Jeremie27471 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review by Group 23:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify... Yes, I appreciated the detail regarding services available at the clinic as well as the clinic's proposed plans for expansion. I did not detect any bias in their writing, which was the goal! Great job! Mandyhanks (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... Yes! Many of the citations are from the actual Berkeley Free Clinic website, which is freely available. This is a great source because it comes directly from the clinic. Good choice! I think it may also be useful to include sources such as local news, so that there is a more diverse range of information (assuming the other sources are neutral).Parktj94 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… The edits are consistent with Wikipedia's style. It is also written in a way where it is neutral and informative. One thing I noticed was the there are many sections under "Services." I understand that the editors in this group wanted to talk about each service separately, but because there are only a few sentences for each service it doesn't look like a typical wikipedia article. Most wikipedia articles have substantially more text per sub-heading. One recommendation to add more information or to combine different services into one subheading.A1016neo (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify... This group did a very good job adding to a Class C article and contributed a lot of new and specific information about the types of services The Berkeley Free Clinic offers. The group utilized one to two resources for information about each type of service, and it can benefit from drawing from a wider range of sources. However, from cross-checking the article with the sources cited, I did not notice any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation, and the group did a great job paraphrasing the information into their own words. JennWen (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]