Talk:Venoms in medicine

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Venoms in medicine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Evaluation

In this article evaluation, I looked at the wikipedia page titled, "Biomimetics". The article starts with a brief overview of what the term biomimetics (or biomimicry) entails. The term biomimetics, coined by Otto Schmitt in 1969, describes the idea that we(as a community) can observe and imitate nature in order to "solve complex human problems". Afterwards, the author delves into the history of the term and how certain fields apply this idea to make new discoveries. In general, the article is very objective. It gave the essential points of the topic for understanding, supporting the information with examples of how biomimetics have been applied in various subjects: physics, biology, etc. Throughout the article, these examples are carefully cited at the bottom of the article. Most of the sources are physical copies so I was not able to check their validity; despite this, the online sources that were listed were all reputable sources. Although the article was eloquent in describing what the topic was, I thought that some of the examples listed were obvious and simple. I would have liked to see more "out of the ordinary" examples or at least a link to see and learn more about biomimetics. After looking at the talk page, however, I was able to find a lot of more information about the topic. It was interesting to see people debate about whether page should exist on its own, or if it should be incorporated with the "bionics" page. Ultimately, the article was informative and accurate, however, I would have liked to have seen more examples of biomimetics in areas other than the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanpan007 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

The article is well organized and has clear focus. I think it is structured well and lays out a good design for how to move forward with the topic. Also it isn't a well known topic so it's something that would be helpful to add to wikipedia. The neutral tone is very good!

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I like the headings and subheadings I think they will be more clear once more material is added. The topic would be explained a little more in the lead paragraph as well.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The best improvement would be to add more material to each section to develop a deep and well thought piece.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! This article could be helpful to the article I am editing on pain management in children because venom could possible have some effect on pain management and treatment. This could definitely linked to the article I am working on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennac1117 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

____ The topic of this article is a subject on which there is not a lot of mainstream information, yet it is a worthwhile topic--so it is great that you are writing this. I would like to see a clearer lead section that quickly defines venom but then moves on to a high-level overview of the application in a medical context. You may wish to rename the subsections also--instead of "ongoing research," for instance, you could just use descriptive headings to indicate the topic that will be covered. I would also avoid headings phrased as questions (e.g. "Why Venom?). Also, if the article is going to be focused on venom and medicine, you could omit the final section on other uses of venom. My main recommendation at this point is to expand the content from within using the framework outline you have established. Amyc29 (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The sourcing in this draft is not OK. Please review WP:MEDRS and use sources that comply. Sources like Popular Mechanics and Job Monkey are not OK. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]