Theresaquaderer

Welcome!

Hello, Theresaquaderer, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Theresa!

My name is Hannah, and I am also a kinesiology major at MSU! I look forward to working with you and our other classmates this semester! Good luck with the Wikipedia assignment!--Kosaskih (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Theresa! My name is Vy and I'm a sophomore studying Supply Chain Management. In my free time I also enjoy working out and watching movies. Both of these help me relax and get my mind off of things. (talk)

Hello!

Hi, Theresaquaderer -- welcome to Wikipedia! As Ian mentioned, the Teahouse is a great resource for new editors. But did you know that Wikipedia also has an extensive help library for common questions? Of course, if you run into a question or problem, you're always welcome to get in touch with me either by email or on my talk page. Happy editing! Fraudoktorkatie (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi Theresa. Nice work on your article. That said, it could still use some work. For starters, it lacks the type of lead section that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have. Instead, you have written an introduction. A Wikipedia article should start with a sort statement of what the topic is. Something like

Clinical empathy is...

You should strive to make a succinct statement about the nature of the topic in a sentence or two. Then you should use the rest of the lead (1-2 paragraphs) to summarize all the major points of the article. Could you make those changes? Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Theresaquaderer

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? -The article does a great job with explaining what clinical empathy is. I enjoyed reading and learned a lot more about it than I thought I would. I like how you compare western and eastern medicine ideas in your article. It was interesting to learn about the different views doctors have on their patients regarding to their emotions. I feel that this subject is not frequently talked about enough in medicine although it is an important part to consider when dealing with peoples lives. Overall, the article seemed really clear, concise, and had reliable sources to back up your information.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? -Because the topic of empathy is a very complex idea, I can see where it can be tricky for the information to not appear biased. In the first section under empathy during medical education you talk about only the two types of ways a student might view their cadaver. You say they are either more or less opposed to dissection based on their feelings towards the cadavers. I feel that can be true, but there are also more feelings and emotions they are experiencing other than that. It kind of gives off that you are either one or the other. Improving how that is worded or adding more words can make that section appear more scientific and not just a clear answer to what the students feel about their cadavers,

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? -The most important thing you could do is just make sure it is as unbiased as possible. The article looks great so far!

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - I really liked the specific example you used from Thailand, I would like to add something similar to my article. Goodell8 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Quaderer,

What really impress me is the topic, I think it's a abstruse and complex theme. From your article, I knew the differences of clinical empathy in different places and how patients are treated with the clinical empathy.

Through reading your first draft, I found you have limited revision and sources of the medical information of clinical empathy added to the original Wikipedia article. I agree with you that it's extremely difficult to find the reliable sources to add into the article. As for me, it also take several hours to search, read and articulate exactly what I want to say.

To improve your first draft, I think you can find great sources from the medical books and rewrite it into your own words. And, in this first draft, I think it's better to just write down the new parts you added. With this topic, I think you can talk more about how can the clinical empathy help people and how much it may cost. Besides, you can talk more about how widely it is used right now in the hospital.

Honggengqi (talk)