Talk:Dysosmia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dysosmia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | 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 Dysosmia.
|
Student 20013
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 –had no comments yet
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 – very thorough on citation and background information on the anatomy and physiology, could be outstanding if you went more into how problems in the physiology results in dysosmia _______________ Total: 19 out of 20
Hilary Lynch (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size:2 over 15,000
3. Readability:2
4. Refs:2 over 10 refs.
5. Links:2 links are used when needed
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting:2 great flow, information is well developed
8. Writing:2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 ( used name)
10. Outstanding?:2 great job, very informative. Subject is well described and all background information is given. _______________ Total:20 out of 20
P J McGill (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 2
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1 Comments: I would try to add just a few more spread out throughout the article to cover all sections.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 2
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2 _______________ Total: 19 out of 20 AllisonMaloney (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
How to use Wikipedia
There is already an Olfactory system artricle which may be refered to in this article is about Dysosmia. The commtent yyou added was very much like an essay rather than a wikipedia article so I have reverted the article to its previous state prior to your addition. You also deleted the catagories. If you wish to desmonstrate your knowlege then use a Sandbox, and then compare tyhe content of your Sandbox with the content of the existing article and / or related articles, and see waht additional relevent information you can add. dolfrog (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Covering the olfactory system in the Dysosmia article serves the purpose of a brief overview of important concepts that will help the reader understand the disorder better; it's not meant to be a substitution for the olfactory system article. The olfactory system article is also labeled as an article that requires clean up and the olfaction article is really extensive. I deleted the categories in the old version I added, but it doesn't mean I didn't cover them. Most of the information I added is additional information not present in the original article and everything is related to the topic. I find this new current version to be more helpful than the original version so I'm adding it again. I did however try to give it more of a wikipedia style so it doesn't sound like an essay and added some categories.
I would like to add that one category on the original article should not be there. Anosmia is not classified as a type of Dysosmia. The explanation can be found on the classification category in the new version.
Laura McKenzie (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Laura, The problem is probably not of your making, more a problem with your university staff not explaining adequately how to use Wikipedia. If the Olfactory system article needs improving and you have content to improve it, then improve that article, but do not include that content in this article. And your peers should use your sandbox talk page when rating your efforts. You should also add your content to the existing article contnet, and not just dump your sandbox presentation to replace all of the previous content. Hopefully you can try to use the original content, and improve the Olfactory system as a wikipedia editor. dolfrog (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)