User talk:Hcrand
| This user is a student editor in Georgetown_University/Culture,_Medicine,_and_Gender_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Hcrand, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review - Courtney Lee
[edit]Peer Review – Courtney Lee
Everything in the article is relevant to chronic illness, and I appreciate the inclusion of a “List of Chronic Illness/Condition Narratives & Books.” I think the section on ‘Social Impact of Chronic Illness’ is a bit hard to follow because it reads like a list of various studies rather than a summary of a theme or concept. This could be hard to digest for someone who doesn’t know anything about the topic. I would also suggest breaking this section into several shorter paragraphs. Also, the title ‘Social Impact of Chronic Illness’ might be misleading—it sounds like you are about to talk about the impacts of chronic illness on society or one’s social standing rather than social factors that contribute or relate to the experience of chronic illness.
There are moments in your edits that seem biased. For example, the first half of the ‘Social Impact of Chronic Illness’ section has a slightly biased tone, according to Wikipedia’s standards. Wikipedia suggests that we avoid citing research that comes from single studies; rather, we should cite “literature reviews or systematic reviews” if we are using medical or scientific journals. I would suggest editing or deleting the sentences that begin with “One study,” because it sounds like you’re cherry picking the studies that suit your claims. I think the last half of this section talking about the psychosocial approach is neutral and well-written. Similarly in the section ‘Risk factors and Emotional Impact,’ sentences beginning with “Recent studies have shown” and “Some have suggested” sound biased. According to the Wikipedia module, phrases that begin with "some people say..." and other claims “made on behalf of unnamed groups or people” are considered biased language.
The section ‘Scholarship about Chronic Condition Summary’ maintains a neutral tone and reads like a historical summary, which aligns well with Wikipedia’s standards. I would write the other sections in a tone similar to this section.
In regards to the overall content, I think you all do a great job of covering the social, emotional, and disability studies connections to chronic illness. You also back up all of your claims with recent sources.
Lastly, there are a few grammatical errors that can be easily corrected. For example, “posits” should be changed to “posit” in the sentence “There have been several theories . . . that posits” and there are tense changes within the same paragraph sometimes. Clee88 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)