User talk:Jmagas/sandbox

Adrenal Fatigue Peer Review 1

1) Content No edits were made to the introduction as it was sufficient for readers already. The contents of each section somewhat justified the length of the edits. Three lengthy paragraphs were added labelled: Causes of Adrenal Fatigue, Treatment Options, Related Adrenal Disorders. All of which used sufficient sources to supplement each section. The first paragraph was the strongest of the three and will not need much, if any, editing. Some of the content of the second paragraph seem to jut off course with a small section explaining the FDA’s regulation of vitamins and supplements. Instead the author could have hyperlinked the ‘Dietary Supplement’ section of the ‘Regulation of food and dietary supplements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’ wiki page. The third paragraph also is almost exclusively about Addison’s Disease which is already a well documented wikipedia page (38 citations) and therefore would be a better source of information for the reader than the paragraph proved to be. It seems as if all concepts/terms that would require further understanding for the average wikipedia user. For example: Addison’s disease, adrenal cortex, fish oil, fight or flight response etc. There are not any highlighted cases or examples of people suffering Adrenal Fatigue, which might further supplement readers’ understanding of what the illness is. Instead there included symptoms and causes which are very helpful. For the most part the article edits are not duplicative of other Wikipedia work. Added content seems to be originally worded by author and well cited. Author does a good job addressing similar topics such as Addison’s disease and adrenal insufficiency while still maintaining Adrenal Fatigue as different content. The third paragraph is about Addison’s disease which is already detailed in its own wikipedia page and thus could have simply been added as a reference as opposed to a paragraph. The third image also is the same one that was used in the Adrenal Cortex wiki page which further elicits that there might be too much duplication in that section of the editing.

2) Figures The figures that were added (all three of them) were all of acceptable quality and size. The first image is of the body’s physiological response to stress which supplements the “Cause of Adrenal Fatigue” paragraph well as it is directly tied to stress-related problems which are “a contributing factor to adrenal fatigue”. The second image is a tad bit less informative and supplemental as it is simply a picture of a vitamin/supplement aisle in a store, which as previously described is slightly off topic and could have been hyperlinked. The third image does a good job of showing the distinguishing features of the Adrenal Cortex which is an important concept to understand for Addison’s Disease.

3) References Authors met and exceeded the five source criteria for the edit with the seven sources they chose. All seven were informative and supplemented information well. Diversity of references was appreciated as it included a good variety: journal, government website, mayo clinic info, and pharmacy information, etc. Authors might want to look for additional sources to address edits that I explained above and below.

4) Overall Presentation Overall the first draft of this wikipedia edit was a good job. There was sufficient information added that was both original and very informative for a general Wikipedia user. The variety of information and pictures supporting the information was great and provided more whole description of Adrenal Fatigue than was originally available on Wikipedia. The authors did a great job collecting information from a total of seven sources and citing all of their information as well as hyperlinking basically every relevant term/concept that a reader might need further clarification on to better understand the topic. I believe some of the information might not be totally pertinent to the understanding of Adrenal Fatigue (FDA regulations and Addison’s disease) or at the most could be hyperlinked instead of expounded on in this edit. The first paragraph was the strongest in my opinion and should be kept, the second could use slight editing in information about FDA regulations and would only benefit from information from another source. I think the third paragraph might be too heavily focused on other topics and does not relate back enough to Adrenal Fatigue to justify its length. The authors could hyperlink Addison’s Disease and Adrenal Insufficiency and then add more information from other sources as well as compare and contrast all “Related Adrenal Disorders” back to Adrenal Fatigue.

SretenF (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Review

Thank you for your great feedback! I really do appreciate your consideration and advice in improving our Wikipedia page. After reading your comments, I will revisit the FDA regulation portion of the edits and decide on a better way to incorporate that information. I do not want it to feel out of place. However, I still think that the information about the FDA and vitamin supplements is important to include because it is an area of concern for consumers. We think it is important that the average Wikipedia reader knows about both the benefits and dangers of vitamin supplement usage. Also, you mention that the section on other adrenal disorders, especially Addison's Disease, seems duplicative of the page on Addison's disease. My partner and I will consider editing the section to possibly make it more condensed and useful. We will use the information on the Wikipedia page on Addison's disease in order to decide what information is most important to leave in. Thank you again for your well-thought feedback. It will surely help us improve our final draft!

In addition, Professor Nagorny had some great feedback for ways to improve our page. In response, I have adjusted the hyperlinks that were left out from the original article. For instance, introduction hyperlinks like "alternative medicine" have been fixed. Also, the first figure was described as being somewhat complicated. Thus, an image of the chemical structure of cortisol replaced the image of stress response, and hopefully it is a better image for what is discussed within the first section. Also, the references have been fixed. The last two references had "U-M login" listed in the title of the reference, but now the references have been replaced by book references for easier access to non-U of M persons. Under the "treatment options" section, the wording has been reworked in order to make it less personal in tone and more academic. Also, the figure for this same section was adjusted to use a hopefully more suitable image as well. Instead of showing vitamin supplements in a grocery store, the image now shows a jar of fish oil as one example of a treatment option. Overall, the feedback from Professor Nagorny was very beneficial. We hope our final draft will have many improvements.

In conclusion, we thank Professor Nagorny and our peer for the constructive critiques.

Jmagas (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)JmagasJmagas (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Review 2

Thank you for the key advice when it came to editing our page. I agree that our explanation of the FDA's regulation of supplements goes a little off course, and that instead we will hyperlink what you suggested. It seems like the regulation is too big of a topic to just mention one sentence about it, and that it goes away from the purpose of the paragraph. However, I do also believe that is essential to understanding adrenal fatigue and why it is an important topic to be discussed. Because supplements are not regulated by the FDA, this has invalidated some claims about adrenal fatigue that we want to address. We will definitely fix that, though and add the hyperlink from the FDA's website. Our content was definitely original and well thought out, and we will change the adrenal cortex picture to something more fitting. I also agree that addison's disease is critical to our diicussion of adrenal fatigue, as it is something adrenal fatigue can lead into. It makes sense logically to discuss it, however I appreciate your important insight into the already detailed page that exists for addison's disease. I really appreciate all the great insight into our edits! Thank you to Professor Nagorny and our peer reviews for the edits on our page. We hope that our final page will be great! Esjaff (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Esjaff[reply]

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Good additions to the original article. Here are a few suggestions before you post your article to the main space.

I see that you did not post on the Talk page of the original article to mention that you are students and would be working on the article as described in the Task Details document, Task 5-4. So, people who are working on this article do not know what you have been doing. When you post your edits, they may be surprised and can propose strong disagreement.
Some sections in the original article seem to be messed up in your sandbox. Please make sure you do not copy those back to the original article. Please only copy the part you added and paste them to the main space one paragraph at a time.
Your reference format needs to be fixed. For example, reference 1 is a journal article, you should have filled in volume, issue and page number, DOI etc. when you added the citation. Please let me know if you need help with fixing them.
If you'd like to adjust the location and size of your images, see this tutorial Wikipedia:Picture tutorial.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fake diseases can't have causes. Or treatments. ack. If you introduce this content it will be deleted in a heartbeat. We have an article on Addison's Disease. This is not that article. Also please use only sources that comply with WP:MEDRS when writing about health in Wikipedia. You have some garbage sources in here like http://www.hormone.org/ mayoclinic is not good either. None of what is here is an improvement on the existing article. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog,

I understand your opinion. However, I think that it is important to show both sides of the controversy on adrenal fatigue. Many people in the medical community support it, as well as oppose it. On Wikipedia, neutrality is supposed to be implemented to show these different viewpoints. I believe that the original article is too biased towards those who oppose adrenal fatigue as a diagnosis. This is precisely what I was trying to alter within my edits. Also, you claim that "Mayo Clinic" is an improper source; however, a "Mayo Clinic" source already exists on the current page on "adrenal fatigue". Thus, why is this source allowed if it is not reliable? I believe that my edits would add a lot on adrenal fatigue. My edits provide a great resource for everyday users, eager to learn more about adrenal fatigue. I understand your concerns about complying with MEDRS, and I am implementing steps to adhere to those guidelines already. I have removed any content in my edits that makes any sort of medical recommendation. Finally, I would appreciate it if you used a more respectful tone when discussing these matters with me. I am good-intentioned, and I am a student that is simply trying to help improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

Jmagas (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)JmagasJmagas (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my opinion. We rely on reliable sources per MEDRS. Thanks for pointing out the mayoclinic ref, I will remove it. Your edits are not acceptable. Again, this is not a real condition; it cannot be diagnosed or treated, because it doesn't exist. There are a lot of things like this in the world - the class of things is called "pseudoscience". Things that are "scientific-y" but fake. I assume your class has an ambassador. Ask them what "discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom" are. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]