User talk:Tiernesteph

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tiernesteph, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classmate Review[edit]

Lead Section:

There could be some expansion here. This section should serve as a summary of the article that will follow see Wikipedia Lead Section.

Use Section:

WikiLinks can be added to this section such as: thermal paper, European Chemicals Agency, polyestersulfone, polysulfone, polycarbonate, hormone.

I understand the point that is trying to be made with BPS replacing BPA, but sometimes it is confusing to whether this is an article on BPS or BPA. For example, “Campbell’s is phasing out BPA in its metal linings, but refused to disclose what alternative lining will be used instead, which is assumed to contain BPS.” It could maybe just use some rewording to stress the importance of BPS in this product as opposed to the main subject being BPA. Another place where this is seen is in the first half of the last paragraph.

The first sentence of the sixth sentence could be reworded: “BPS replaced BPA used in printing thermal paper for cash register receipts has been shown to mess with hormones and mimics estrogen.” It is an abrupt transition from BPS replacing BPA to “mess”ing with hormones. Remember that this is the use section, at times it seems to stray from that and goes more into toxicity.

The last paragraph should be reworded. The starting sentence seems quite subjective. I understand the point that I trying to be made, but I am unsure if this is the type of phrasing that should be used in a Wikipedia article. The first few sentences seem like this paragraph will be focused on BPA then it switches to BPS abruptly.

Toxicity Section:

WikLlinks: estrogen receptors, antagonist, androgen receptor, cascade (biomedical cascade), estradiol.

Estrogen and oestrogen are the same thing. It is just difference in spelling between American English and British English respectively. I would choose one way to spell it throughout the article to not confuse the reader.

Unfortunately not much more information can be put here until they study BPS more.

History:

I think this is good concise section. It gives good information in a direct way.

Maybe try to find a date for when the baby bottle bans happened.

How was BPS incorporated into everyday consumer products, was it as dyes? What was BPS being used for from 1869 to now?

Regulation:

One of its uses is as an indirect food additive? Maybe mention this in the Use section as well?

The part about BPS leaks into animals and disrupts chemicals could be something to add into the toxicity section.

The last sentence is an opinion sentence not a source of information from a Wikipedia page.

Synthesis:

Another good direct straight to the point section.

Citations:

There are some double, one even triple cited sources. Duplicate sources should be deleted.

Overall:

Overall, I think this is a good start for a chemical that as so minimal evidence on it. I think the information that is in the article is informative and the most up to date information that is out there. I think most of the edits lie in the wording of the article. Many times throughout the article there is a sentence directly taken from the source and placed within a paragraph. There should be more paraphrasing and flow from one sentence to the next and one paragraph to the next. Keep in mind that some of the sources that are being used are newspaper articles where the author is allowed to put her/his opinion in, but this is not the case for a Wikipedia article. There are some opinionated tones that I think could be easily fixed from rewording one’s opinion from the direct citation of a source to a non-opinionated statement. Maybe add a prevention section, one where you could state the best possible ways to prevention oneself from being in contact with BPS. Lastly, keep in mind that this is an article for BPS not BPA and be consistent with wording. At times there is BPS, bisphenol S and bisphenol S. Maybe after mentioning the full name in the beginning, the acronym, BPS, could be used. Good luck with the rest of your work on this page!

Tracklete14 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Xenoestrogen page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]