Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was very recently created by a brand new editor through
WP:AfC (bravo!) and moved into article space. I'm interested in any feedback editors may have, but the following areas are of specific interest to me:
Many thanks, Zachlipton ( talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Aircorn Comments An impressively big article for a first time editor. Unfortunately as you mention size is an issue. I will go through each section paying attention to the points made above. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Have made a start. I will try and get to the rest in the next couple of days. I should let you know that this is my first review so don't take my comments as gospel. Hope it helps though. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitions
History
Foundational Science
The Connection Between Lifestyles and Health
Mind-Body Connection
Prevention
Social Determinants of Health
Environmental Aspects of Health and Disease
A Systems Approach
Patient-Centered Care
Clinical Research
Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public
Integrative Medicine in Academia
"a group of acclaimed medical schools" would remove that unless a strong cite can be found
Integrative Medicine Institutions, Best Practices in Integrative Medicine and Research Organizations
Cost Effectiveness
Future of Integrative Medicine
References
Lead
General
My advice would be to trim back this article as much as possible. Make use of wikilinks and compress the sections. Each section should have a theme and the writing should stay focused on that theme. My recommendations would be something along the lines of (Definition, History, ?Principles?, Research, Institutions, and ?Cost effectiveness?). I would not include any alternative treatments at all, but would where possible add in criticisms. If you don't you can be sure someone else will. Not a fan of separate controversy sections, would much rather just add them where appropriate within the body.
The tone of the article is too promotional, but that could mostly be fixed by changing or removing a few words or sentences. I would avoid opinions unless they can be attributed to someone, and then you have to decide if the person making being attributed is notable enough to be mentioned. It also needs some secondary sources to back up the journal articles (reviews should do this).
Images of notable people (who at least have their own wikipedia article) or institutions would be nice if available. Could also use images that represent the therapies (acupuncture, massage etc) or diseases - but I would only use diseases as a last resort. Personally I don't like block quotes and tables/lists as they break up the flow of text. I would rank the article a "C" at the moment and after a heavy trim I would ask for a copy-edit and then relist for another peer review before attempting GA. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article was very recently created by a brand new editor through
WP:AfC (bravo!) and moved into article space. I'm interested in any feedback editors may have, but the following areas are of specific interest to me:
Many thanks, Zachlipton ( talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Aircorn Comments An impressively big article for a first time editor. Unfortunately as you mention size is an issue. I will go through each section paying attention to the points made above. AIRcorn (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Have made a start. I will try and get to the rest in the next couple of days. I should let you know that this is my first review so don't take my comments as gospel. Hope it helps though. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitions
History
Foundational Science
The Connection Between Lifestyles and Health
Mind-Body Connection
Prevention
Social Determinants of Health
Environmental Aspects of Health and Disease
A Systems Approach
Patient-Centered Care
Clinical Research
Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public
Integrative Medicine in Academia
"a group of acclaimed medical schools" would remove that unless a strong cite can be found
Integrative Medicine Institutions, Best Practices in Integrative Medicine and Research Organizations
Cost Effectiveness
Future of Integrative Medicine
References
Lead
General
My advice would be to trim back this article as much as possible. Make use of wikilinks and compress the sections. Each section should have a theme and the writing should stay focused on that theme. My recommendations would be something along the lines of (Definition, History, ?Principles?, Research, Institutions, and ?Cost effectiveness?). I would not include any alternative treatments at all, but would where possible add in criticisms. If you don't you can be sure someone else will. Not a fan of separate controversy sections, would much rather just add them where appropriate within the body.
The tone of the article is too promotional, but that could mostly be fixed by changing or removing a few words or sentences. I would avoid opinions unless they can be attributed to someone, and then you have to decide if the person making being attributed is notable enough to be mentioned. It also needs some secondary sources to back up the journal articles (reviews should do this).
Images of notable people (who at least have their own wikipedia article) or institutions would be nice if available. Could also use images that represent the therapies (acupuncture, massage etc) or diseases - but I would only use diseases as a last resort. Personally I don't like block quotes and tables/lists as they break up the flow of text. I would rank the article a "C" at the moment and after a heavy trim I would ask for a copy-edit and then relist for another peer review before attempting GA. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)