User talk:Misosoupley/bibliography
Peer review / suggestions
[edit]Hello! The additions you've made to this article will improve it in multiple ways, including providing an update to a new phase of the epidemic, and addressing intervention strategies. The challenge of writing an article in a heavily-researched subject matter is to both stay current by incorporating new research, and to effectively shape the text into something that provides a first-time reader with a high-level overview of the shape of topic at hand. I think you did great so far on the former, and most of my suggestion below are to push you to do more of the latter.
In any case, here are a number of detailed suggestions for improvement.
- "However, researchers report…"— This latter sentence doesn't just disagree with what comes before, but update it. So rewrite the first sentence to say when the CDC described the three waves. ("In a 2020 report, the CDC…" etc.); similarly, if you alter the article as planned, you must rewrite "The third and most recent wave of the opioid epidemic began in 2013 and is ongoing" since it's no longer accurate. When did the third wave end?
- This "Causes" section has now expanded to ten paragraphs of text, which is generally too long for a single Wikipedia text block. And now it really tells the story of both the "waves" (or stages) of the epidemic as well as their causes. Consider renaming it to "Waves of the epidemic" (or something similar) and then using subheads for each, or dividing it out into "Waves of the epidemic" and "causes." (The first would be my choice.) Also, front a bit more information into that initial paragraph to explain how an epidemic of abuse of prescription of prescription drugs
- "polysubstance use"—Explain what this means for a nonspecialist reader. The missing piece of this paragraph is that people are getting fentanyl-laced versions of these other drugs, either deliberately or unintentionally.
- Work to improve the article by, for example, searching out references for uncited phrases like "uniquely American problem." I bet you can find a relevant citation.
- This pre-existing sentence says so little with so many words. See if you can improve it: " There is significant speculation as to the root causes of the demographic differences, but thus far a credible explanation has yet to be found given the complexity of the issue and the difficulty in controlling for variables when investigating" Ditto this one: "The rate of overdose deaths is especially concerning considering the epidemiology of opioid affliction among white women, who are at a greater risk because they receive more prescription medications than men."
- Case and Deaton (who should be identified by full name) have a clear argument about demography (i.e., non-college-educated whites) that needs to be spelled out here.
- Find a definition or expansion of the acronym PWUD
- History section last states an annual death toll in 2017. Update this.
- Race and geography sections: The reader should walk away with a clear sense of which racial groups made up the bulk of the deaths, and which had the highest mortality rates from the epidemic during each phase of the epidemic. If you can accomplish this with words alone, fine. If not, I'd strongly recommend creating some kind of table or line chart as we discussed before. This is a race and health class, so put extra effort into this section.
- This article hews very close to Wikipedia's NPOV policy throughout, but you need to attribute this opinion to someone: "Conclusions on the relationship between increasing overdose fatalities and the COVID-19 pandemic will require more research."
- COVID section: This is very well-researched, but could be organized more effectively. I'd suggest paragraphs that are topically organized (how did deaths change? did the pandemic explain increased overdoses? ) Try to avoid the one-paragraph-per-article pacing and summarize like ideas together.
- Bystander intervention: This is an effective and necessary addition.