Talk:Postmenopausal confusion

Multiple cleanup and propose merge

In general, please review WP:MEDMOS (on the structure of medical articles) and WP:MEDRS on medical sourcing guidelines. I have removed some (but not all) of the primary sources, removed some editorializing, restructured the article to conform with MEDMOS, removed text that clearly belongs at menopause and is off-topic here, placed some of that here on talk, and copyedited a bit. I cannot see at this stage any reason for any text that is here not to be covered at menopause, and suggest further cleanup then merge there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This text is offtopic here and belongs at menopause, if anywhere. Some of it is poorly sourced (old sources or hypotheses or primary sources). Whether this article should exist separately from menopause is doubtful; regardless, this article does not need to revisit menopause.

• The irregular functioning is often externally portrayed through mixed emotions during the premenstrual time (PMS). Menopause brings the amygdala and prefrontal cortex to consistently functional and regulated state as hormone levels stay low and do not face the spikes associated with menstruation.
• Estrogens are involved in a wide range of functions including female sex characteristics and reproduction as well as cognitive protection and hormonal relationships.
• Studies on estrogen therapy in relation to cognition postmenopause have shown that therapy can have beneficial affects if utilize right before or during menopause, thus indicating a "critical window" theory. This is consistent with the "healthy cell bias" of estrogen, meaning that estrogen has positive effects on healthy neurons but can cause added damage to neurons with previous afflictions.

Thank you SandyGeorgia for your help. I will discuss with my professor whether I should go ahead and move this content, as I agree it all fits better under menopause. As I continue making changes, please feel free to inform me of what is not allowed as I know many of my resources are primary sources. AllisonMaloney (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alison, if you have enough secondary sources that you think you can justify a stand-alone article (that is, so much information that it can't be included at menopause), we could discuss further, but based on what is here, I'm not seeing that so far. Thanks for engaging on talk !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Question- much of the research on this topic is so incredibly new (especially the exact finding of how estrogen and cognition coincide), so is there any possible way I can portray a primary source without having issues? Thanks so much for your help. AllisonMaloney (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There are limited instances where using recent info and primary sources is acceptable (see WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT and again WP:MEDRS), but this isn't likely to be one of them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not news, and not for original research; we prefer secondary sources. Here is an example where we might cautiously accept the use of a widely published and well regarded primary source that has not yet been reviewed by secondary sources: in that case, a random controlled trial was twice as large as the previous meta analysis, and it was published in a highly reputable journal. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Going Forward

User:SandyGeorgia, I am hoping to be able to get up to 15,000 bytes in this topic and within the menopause page. As I continue to add things do you mind if I post them here first to be checked, especially sources? Also, do you suggest moving the article back to my sandbox as I continue working? Thank you immensely for your help and if you find that is article may not be fit, please let me know as I may change topics. AllisonMaloney (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allison; thanks for engaging on talk.

I am not an admin, and I'm unclear on the process and even whether one should move an article back to sandbox after it has been moved to mainspace and edited by others. I will ask an admin to look in here for you. One possibility is that you just continue working in sandbox, and then overwrite this article with your new content, but I'm really not sure.

Also, the biggest problem with the article now, as we discussed earlier, is the lack of secondary reviews. I would be most willing to help you advance the article if you are using secondary reviews, but working on a draft that is based on primary sources isn't a good use of my time. Have you seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches? Do you know how to look up a source in the search engine which you can find here from PubMed, see if the source is primary or secondary, and include a PMID in your citation? If not, our first step is for me to help you learn to do that. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

AllisonMaloney, I just realized that this article has already been moved back and forth from sandbox once, which meant a lot of work for editors here. An admin did the move, deleted the old page (which lost all of my work), and then when you moved it back, I did my work on the article again. So, no, I don't think a third shot out of sandbox is a good next step. That would mean a lot of work for a lot of volunteers, and is not the way Wikipedia is used.

From several other articles I've seen from your class, it appears that your professor designed the course poorly, and you students are left in a lurch. First, he didn't make sure you had enough sources and were writing on topics that wouldn't end up deleted or merged (that should have been the first step), and second, he has you publishing articles before he has graded them. He should have been grading your work in your sandbox, and they should not have been published to mainspace until they were ready; as soon as you publish anything to Wikipedia, you no longer own it and it can change. Your professor should learn how to go through the diffs to see the history of the article; your original version is still in the article history (and in your sandbox, I imagine). He can grade it there if he didn't set up the course to grade in sandbox.

Can you talk to your campus or online ambassador about this poor course design? Perhaps suggest that your article be graded in your sandbox. If you don't get a satisfactory outcome, then you might talk to your school advisor, your school newspaper, your parents, or your department chair to tell them that your professor has designed a course where students are not likely to have a good experience. If your professor wants to stop by here to chat, I'll be happy to explain these things to him, but I cannot recommend moving the article back to sandbox a second time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Thank you so much for your advice. Our final page is due the 27th and I would like to continue. I am currently looking up more secondary resources at this time for this topic to augment my arguments/information. I would also like to merge the article as you suggest after I have reached the full length that I can but will need your help as I have no idea how that works. Once again thanks for all of your help, and I will stay in touch once I am ready to merge. Please continue engaging me as you see more things that may need editing as I add. AllisonMaloney (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

1. Quality of Information: 1 – looked like some of the information included was not quite on topic (looks like you have worked on it since last Monday)

2. Article size: 0 – only had 11 kilobytes by 7pm on Monday, and now has 7 kB (looks like you are working on fixing this though)

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: 2 – you are doing a really good job communicating on the talk page

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1 – first version was a little hard to follow, but newest version looks better.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 – no new media or anything above and beyond, but you included an interesting graph and figure. Maybe you could explain them in the body of your article

_______________

Total: 15 out of 20 Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2/2
2. Article size: 1/2
Comment – had 10,972 bytes before 11/19
3. Readability: 2/2
4. Refs: 2/2
5. Links: 2/2
6. Responsive to comments: 2/2
Comments – Great job in communicating
7. Formatting: 1/2
Comments – Overall the article doesn’t seem to have been fully developed or finished. Also, the external links section is empty.
8. Writing: 2/2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2/2
10. Outstanding?: 1/2
Comments - Overall the information given is good, but could be rearranged to flow better with the addition of more details and more information on the subject.
_______________
Total: 17 out of 20

• • All comments are based on version submitted for grading
    

AlexLee90 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 0

• did not meet minimal criteria

3. Readability: 1

• tone was not common throughout the page

4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1

• a little bit hard to follow sometimes

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1

• I can see how hard you're working on this. Keep it up, it'll get there!

_______________

Total: 15 out of 20 Thuy Le (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)