Talk:Nocturia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:22, 25 November 2013

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

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 Nocturia.

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 Stub‑class Mid‑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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peer Reviews

1. Quality of Information: 2

The information presented is factual.

2. Article size: 0

The article itself meets the assignment requirements, but the author's contribution does not. This was also completed after the deadline.

3. Readability: 2

This is very easy to read.

4. Refs: 2

The author used more than the required number of references.

5. Links: 2

There are a lot of links to other wikipedia pages throughout the article.

6. Responsive to comments:2

There are no comments yet.

7. Formatting: 2

This was formatted very well and divided into subtopics that made sense.

8. Writing: 2

This was well written.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

The username is close to the author's real name, but it's not the author's real name and I didn't see it on the user Talk page.

10. Outstanding?: 2

This article was interesting to read.

_______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Catherine Kwon (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 1

- The most recent source is from 2007.

2. Article size: 2

- Didn't contribute the entire 15KB+, but the final size is enough, so I think that's okay.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

- Good subtopics

8. Writing: 1

- I don't thin all the acronyms are necessary; when they're onyl mentioned once there is no point and when they are mentioned again the reader still has to look back up to see what it stands for. Maybe only use a couple important ones.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 1

- Couldn't find the entire real name anywhere, buy username is close.

10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________

Total: 17 out of 20

Rachel Candace Law (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]