Yubl

Welcome!

Hello, Yubl, 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) 18:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yu,

I have drafts on my sandbox and is ready to post to the article. Would you please help to take a look and let me know if you have any additional thoughts or recommendations? Thanks and appreciate your effort!

Jessicaatwiki (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Vitamin E

Editors, including me, have been laboring on the vitamin E article to raise the quality so it can be proposed for a Good Article review. If you do intend to make changes to the article I suggest you first post your intended changes at the Talk page for that article. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindly reminder. If I decided to work on the Vitamin E article. I will post my changes at the Talk page. I really appreciate your time and help.

The other three (Chitin, Apple cider vinegar, whey protein) are all currently Start-class, and so more likely in need of improvement. When you comment in reply to someone else's comment, preface it with one more of : than the last comment. This indents. Do not forget to sign your comments (your own talk, articles talk) by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The science literature on apple cider vinegar is almost non-existent. Chitin as a topic is controversial. In March 2017 a student project added a large amount of text on health claims that was subsequently removed by experienced editors Zefr and Jytdog. This can be seen via 'View history'. Both of them continued to maintain a Watch on the article, and are quick to revert additions that rest on inappropriate references. Whey protein can be improved, but as with any medicine/health topic, use WP:MEDRS citations. David notMD (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Yu,

Thanks for your review on my drafting in the sandbox! Great suggestions to get more information on how long should women stop drinking before pregnancy. I will look for more articles and see if I can find those out. Appreciate your feedback!

BTW, I will take a look at your drafting and get back to you later. - Jessica

Jessicaatwiki (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to argue a position or point of view. Nor should they give advice. Regardless of content, a section header like this is likely to be problematic:

Health effect of whey protein in people with overweight/obesity

Something simpler, like "Health impacts" might be OK, depending on content and context.

The actual content has quite a few problems:

Whey protein not only has been proved to have many benefits for healthy people like enhanced immune function, weight reduction, and maintenance of catabolism of muscle mass during exercise[1] but also have some potential biological advantages for adult with overweight/obesity. [2]

• "not only been proved" is problematic. For starters, asserting that something is proven is a very strong claim, and for the most part, outside the range of conclusions you can reasonably draw from biomedical studies in humans. Correlations are common, strong correlations are pretty good, and something supported by a wealth of data and maybe a good mechanism is great. But even that isn't quite "proof".
• Wikipedia articles aren't about convincing anyone of anything. Constructions based around "not only..." tend to be argumentative. They also tend to gloss over actual information. If there are benefits, you should used high-quality sources (remember, recent systematic reviews is the standard you should be looking for), and you should discuss them with proper nuance and context.
• Don't say "many benefits...like". Be specific. Cite your sources.
• In most cases you shouldn't be talking about "potential biological advantages" when you're talking about biomedical topics.

Supplementation with whey protein can improve blood pressure and vascular function in overweight and obese individuals[3] . The function of inducing satiety[4][5][6], increasing thermogenesis and reducing blood glucose level[7] [8]enabled the application of whey protein in the therapeutic treatment for obesity.[9]

• Saying things like "can improve blood pressure", etc., isn't acceptable in Wikipedia articles unless backed up with systematic review articles. And even then, you need context.
• You can't use primary sources to draw general conclusions.

I recommend you read the sourcing guidelines for medical topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't follow the advice Ian gave you above. I have removed the text you added to whey protein due to problematic sourcing:

• All of your sources, except for one, were primary sources. See WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Primary sources for a better understanding of what this means. A primary source is like a press release from a company about its own products; it isn't an independent review. In a medical context, a primary source has authors writing about their own study; it isn't an independent review of studies. Wikipedia needs secondary medical sources, which would be by authors who have analyzed the studies of others.
• The only secondary source you added was about dietary protein in general, not whey protein specifically. While the conclusions drawn from that source are valid, it misrepresents the source by putting it in the context of making claims about whey protein versus any protein.

Wikipedia absolutely cannot make any medical claims about benefits or efficacy unless they are cited to secondary or tertiary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If you return to Wikipedia...

...you may be disappointed that all of your edits to Whey protein were reversed. The issue, as explained in the Edit summary, is that primary research - individual clinical trials - are not acceptable citations for medical/health topics. Only reviews. I hope you do return to Wikipedia on your own - not on class assignment - and join the many who collectively work to improve articles. David notMD (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)