User talk:Ajdellinger/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1

Beginning with your introduction, it seems rather short and as though there is a lot of information missing that would make it more clear to non-expert viewers what the upcoming article actually discusses.

On a sentence level, I would look into making some of your sentences more clear by using better language in syntax. And I would also suggest putting in all your citations before you submit the next draft of your page.

The section on individual versus group goals seems a little unclear to me. I suggest making it more clear what you mean by individual goals and group goals. Once again on a sentence level, within this paragraph some of the sentences are too long thus hard for the reader to follow well.

I think you guys did a good job explaining ideas in the compulsory vaccination section. My only suggestion is that you separate the part about objections to compulsory vaccinations from the rest of the paragraph by making it its own paragraph.

Beginning with the section entitled policies and history by country this part of your page is incomplete as your sandbox page indicates. Firstly, you need to ensure that all of the key words are hyperlinked to other wikipedia pages that can explain them. Also, the section on the Republic of Ireland is rather short and doesn't say very much in comparison to sections on other countries. I suggest adding more information to this part. In the Pakistan and Latvia sections be sure cite the quotes at the end of the paragraph. Additionally, the beginning of the Latvia section saying "according to the 2011 publication..." doesn't allude to anything therefore doesn't make very much sense.

In the sections on each country there is no standard format for the information provided. While in some you offer general information regarding vaccination policies in other you simply state specific cases that have to do with vaccination. I think you should standardize it a little more to make information for each country more clear to uninformed viewers.

I think that you usage and placement of pictures, charts, and tables is very helpful and informative.

Lastly just as a minor detail the punctuation ending sentences always goes before the footnote citation. Currently you have all the punctuation marks on the outside of the citation.

Overall I think your ideas are good however I would go back and do some editing to make sure that your sentences and words are clear, concise, and easy to follow for an uninformed reader. I would also go back and ale sentence level edits regarding punctuation and wording. Lastly, I suggest making sure everything that should be cited or hyperlinked is actually done.

Inewmark1 (talk)Isabella NewmarkInewmark1 (talk)

Thanks for the feedback, but I think that you might have misinterpreted our edits. My sandbox page includes our contribution within the entire article. My partner's sandbox page (which can be found from the google doc) outline specifically our edits. We decided to upload information on 4 major European countries: France, Italy, Germany, and Spain rather than altering the current wikipedia article. My partner and I have chosen not to alter the existing article as we have not done any outside research to justify our edits.We did add hyperlinks, as you pointed out, and we completed our citations. We have attempted to standardize the format, at least for the 4 countries we added- we have described major government and private agencies in the countries and their role, or lack thereof, to give the reader a basic understanding of vaccination policy with hyperlinks to more in-depth pages. We have also fixed the punctuation ending sentences and put them before the footnote. Thank you! We probably would not have noticed that without your comment. Good luck and thank you for your feedback! Also, we have updated our tables to make them a little more readable (we included a key of what the vaccines stand for). Ajdellinger (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaccination Policy Peer Review 2

As far as "feasibility" goes, I believe these edits are relevant, justified, and properly cited with strong literature sources. The sections that were added fit into the format of the existing article and effectively describe the vaccination policies that exist in 4 other countries that were not previously listed on the original page. I am unsure if any of the sources used in the edits were also used on the existing page, but regardless, there are plenty of citations in the edits that back up the information provided. In terms of relevancy to both the existing article and to the goals of this class, I think it makes sense to include the policies of several prominent countries to the page as this will surely be information that many will utilize in the future.

It also appears that the language of the edits is appropriate for Wikipedia: unbiased, straightforward, and supported by sources. By nature this topic is prone to controversy and polarized opinions, but it appears the added sections remain objective and merely report the facts and situations surrounding vaccination policy in various countries. There are 4 relevant graphics posted under each added section describing types of vaccinations in those countries.

In terms of editing suggestions, I recommend the following:

- The graphics in each section are good and relevant, but without a key or source I'm not sure how to read them. I'm not sure what things like "IPV" and "TT" mean, and without that information the graphics lose their impact. I would suggest adding more description and citing them properly. Not as important, but I would also suggest making some of them smaller so they fit on the screen better, but that's more about page aesthetics.

- While there is a lot of great information in the added sections, the reading of it is a bit dense and I might suggest chunking it up into sub-topics for better organization and readability.

-A minor suggestion, you might consider changing the wording of the first sentence in the Italy section so it doesn't include "burden" (for wiki language purposes).

- The punctuation should probably be before the citation in your sentences.

- Consider varying your syntax to include short sentences alongside longer ones to improve readability.

All in all, these are strong additions to the page and the authors appear to have put in a lot of work here. Zauberhaft1 (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your feedback! Your positivity and respectfulness is well-received by my partner and me. We do not believe any of the citations were used prior, as we focused on four specific countries not mentioned in the original article. We have altered the graphics in the tables. As you have suggested, we have placed a small description underneath the table to help readers understand the tables and the vaccine names. We have also tried to make them appear as thumbnails rather than taking up the whole screen, I agree- aesthetically, it is more appealing to the eye. Our professor suggested we add a table for the United States, so I would recommend for you to check that out also, if you are at all interested. We have looked at the punctuation/citation issue, and I believe that we have fixed that, but if there is any issue please let us know! We are continuing to revise sentence formatting/ wording, but we really do appreciate your input. Thanks again! Ajdellinger (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews (Partner #2)

Thanks everyone for your feedback! I agree that the intro was a little short, but hopefully the external links we've added since the original draft will provide opportunities for readers to gather more information if they'd like. We appreciated your comments on the countries like Ireland, Pakistan, and Latvia, but the 4 countries we chose to focus on were France, Italy, Spain, and Germany. In the future if we continue this project, we would definitely look more closely at the information on the other countries, and add in additional charts for them, too! We took some time to shorten sentences and clarify our wording, and hopefully that will help readers digest the information a little better. Your point on vaccination policy being controversial in general was very true, and hopefully our use of government sources rather than opinion pieces help keep the information objective. Thank you again for your help!

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Great additions to the article! Here are a few suggestions before you post to the main space.

1. Your images of vaccine schedules look good. Just want to check if you actually drew those table yourself. If so, you need to at least cite the data source in the captions so that people know where you get the info. If you didn't draw those schedule yourself and they are screenshots form somewhere, you will need to revise the copyright status. If they are from a government website, they can be in public domain. If they are from somewhere else, you may or may not have the right to share them. And no matter which case it is, you need to cite the source on both the captions of the figure and the Wikimedia Commons page with details of the figure. Please let me know if you have questions about this.
2. Speaking of vaccination schedules, the ECDC page hereseems to hold some authority. I haven't seen it in your reference. If that's where the data of your schedule plot coming from, please cite it. If not, please consider citing it with an additional sentence.
3. There are several issues with your reference formatting. Those ones with the check-data value error is caused by how you formatted the access date. Just change them to this format 2016-03-10 and remember to remove the stop sign. A more important problem is that you are not citing the references according to their types. For example, reference 2 is a news article, you should have a link to it. Reference 4 seems to be a journal article, you should have cited the publication title, volume, issue and page number etc. but not the PubMed records where it's indexed. These errors have to be fixed. If you need help, please contact me. One more thing, some references appear multiple times in the bibliography like 5-7, 10-11, 13-14, 15-16, 17-19, 21-22, etc. This can be solved with using the RefNames to cite for subsequent citations. You'd see how to do it if you watch the video tutorial till the very end. Again, please let me know if you need help.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)