Talk:Sociology of health and illness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSociology of health and illness was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Anonymous 10/30/2013 Hey, I don't use the talk page very often, so I realize this formatting is all wrong, but it looks like it's been a long time since anyone edited this page. There's a big problem on it that I can't fix myself- this page has very little to do with sociology of health and illness; it's got a lot of irrelevant information on the situation of healthcare around the world and very little on how it relates to sociology. I don't know how to put a sticky at the top of the page that says something like that, but if anyone sees this it would be nice if they could put it up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.171.152.227 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

starting out[edit]

This article is about to undergo some serious work, stay tuned --Dam59 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Looking forward to seeing your "to do" list fleshed out here soon! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is our Plan of Action[edit]

The topic we are interested in is "Sociology of Illness". We plan to outline our wiki page as follows;

1. Definitions of Sociology of illness

2. Methodology, Research, Important people/researchers

3. Elaborate on relevant terms - Morbidity, Mortality, Co-morbidity, Epidemiology, Pandemic, Prevalence, Incidence...etc

4. Regions- Each person will explore patterns of illness within their continent Asia- (Alicia) Some of the most frequently occurring diseases in Asia are spread by mosquitos: Japanese Encephalitis- a brain disease which, in many areas of Asia, 70% of adults have been infected with at some point Typhoid/Malaria- very common among children throughout Asia, with a high mortality rate [1]--Acq123 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Africa- (John) Im going to focus on the patterns of HIV/Aids and Malaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeaster89 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europe- (David)
N. America- (Nell)
S. America( Starr)Northern South America- Hepatitis D: it is a cause of very severe liver disease with distinct histologic features (morula cell) </ref>http://www.pnas.org/content/90/19/9016.abstract Mortality as high as 70%
Malaria: lower altitude rural areas and forested/jungle areas have higher risk of malaria. Non-forested coastal areas are higher risk than high altitude areas, but not as high risk as forested/jungle areas. The highest risk areas of malaria, in and around the Amazon Basin. </ref>http://south-america-travel-tips.com/health-in-south-america/malaria-in-south-america/ T.starr.green 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeaster89 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Jeaster89 (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)T.starr.green 02:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify...is your focus on sociology of health as a research area / academic discipline, or are you actually looking at the sociological aspects of diseases / health care, or is it something else entirely? The above plan seems to cover both, and if you do that you risk trying to cover too much material and in the process not adequately covering either topic. A similar sort of thing happened with a previous article assignment, History of the family (take a look at that talk page for details), and it's probably a good idea to address this now as opposed to after most of the work has been done. Also, what do you mean by "elaborate on relevant terms"? Most of those terms have their own articles for that purpose, so your focus should be more on how they relate to whichever topic you're writing about. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points, and thanks for raising them up, Nikkimaria. It is important to understand the differences between possible focuses of the article, and decide which ones you want to cover and how. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

It is important that you put the references in the article NOT in the discussion page. Chech out some of the tutorials, they are relatively painless. You must close the reference <ref>blah blah blah </ref> . NOT </ref>blah blah blah <ref> --Dam59 (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You better cite where you got all that data Nell.

Question: what style should we be using for our references? APA, MLA, Chicago? --Acq123 (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Citing sources, you can use any style so long as the article is internally consistent. In practice, many people like to use citation templates to make referencing easier - these take information that you input and format the citation automatically. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we need more inline citation, this is what I did and it seems to work well. You create the reference as I shown here as an example We need more inline references or we will never get to Good Article standards.check out what Piotrus said .--Dam59 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A note on references: citations from the Internet shouldn't use bare URLs, but must have titles and access dates (and publishers/authors where available). You can do this either by typing it out by hand ([http://www.en.wikipedia.org this cite] yields this cite) or by using citation templates. I've fixed one reference using a template - check out the diff to see how. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Focus[edit]

I think that we need to read some source material about what the sociology of health and illness is before we start focusing on the region parts of the article. Expanding the other sections should be done by all of us so that our individual sections on each region are more coherent. I would suggest that you use the Google Books preview of Peter Conrad's The Sociology of Health and Illness 7th edition--Dam59 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David, while you explained this to me in an email, I think it will be quite useful if you - and your groupmates - explain here (and likely in the article, with references), how sociology of health and illness differs from medical sociology. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sociology of Health and Illness is different from Medical Sociology since the former attempts to explain how different cultures respond to disease. Sociology of Illness (or Health and Illness) should be a unique article since the Medical Sociology article should study the effects of medical institutions on health.Our proposed article would bring in aspects that are outside the medical field. How do different cultures deal with illness? Are there differences in prognosis between culture groups? Our article will be able to investigate places where no medical institutions exist but still examine how the people deal with illness.--Dam59 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alcoholism in Russia[edit]

I found this really cool map that shows alcohol consumption in the world. I have read an article dealing with health in Russia under threat of increased alcohol related deaths. Some should look for articles on alcohol use and health in other regions so we can use this cool picture for the wikipedia commons. Image:Alcohol by country.svg --Dam59 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect that alcohol related problems would be useful to discuss. Feel free to add that map to the relevant section, but try to not overstress the issue to much - it is, after all, only one of many issues that sociology of h and i looks at. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a clarification david, you're going to handle russia correct? Including it in Europe so I don't need to put it in Asia? Also i'm volunteering to do Australia and Oceania since a lot of the studies and whatnot intermingle Asian countries and Australia/Oceania. --Acq123 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will do Russia. I was hoping some others would add a blerb about alcoholism in their sections so i can include this map that shows alcohol consumption across the globe.--Dam59 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ADDED A SECTION ABOUT ALCOHOLISM UNDER N.A SO FEEL FREE TO ADD THE ALCOHOL MAP. ALSO, CAN SOMEONE PUT MY CITATIONS IN THE REFERENCE SECTION. I CANNOT SEEM TO FIGURE IT OUT --NellRoss4 (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to shout :) If you have a problem with references, go to Wikipedia:Tutorial (Citing sources). It explains how you can create footnotes. More information is at Wikipedia:Footnotes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early draft review[edit]

Early draft review notes:

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • This article can use more images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1500 meters, use 1500 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1500&nbsp;meters.[?]
  • This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
  • Book references should cite page numbers. External links in references should be formated with more information than just a pure html link, see WP:CITE for more info.
  • The following sources don't look very reliable. You should replace them with more reliable sources or justify how they are reliable per WP:RS: [1], [2]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

draft review[edit]

I think we should divide the corrections/critiques that Pitor gave us on our draft so that we can fix them by the 16th.

-Starr —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

I was finding more reliable sources for my section and on the reference appears 3 times on the reference list....how do I fix it?

-Starr —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking what I think you are, the answer is here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

I was unaware this page existed as well as medical sociology. It is quite a good article, superior to the other one, which remains quite minimal. Although there is some slight difference between the two fields, they are very similar, almost synonymous. Would it not allow for a more consistent project if medical sociology were added as a subcategory to this page, or vice versa? --Tomsega (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a few sections above this the consensus was that the two topics were different enough to merit separate articles. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should stay separate, there should be an explanation above as well as in this article why they have different focus (briefly and simply: medical sociology is about the study of medical professionals, while sociology of h and i is about the study of sick people). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

im going to cite my section and finish it up tonight after work...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeaster89 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

okay i cited my source and it is saying that my section is still not sited...i dnt understand (Jeaster89 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

its probably because Pitor put that their to remind you to cite so maybe he would have to remove that. T.starr.green 04:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

Anyone is free to remove the notice -- Coasttocoast (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Feel free to remove it once every sentence is referenced with a reliable source. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • The history section discusses the history of medicine, and doesn't really relate to the development of the idea that you can apply sociology to medicine. Who first used the term? Which sociologists have contributed to the field? When were the major ideas in the field first proposed? This section fails to tell the reader anything about the history of this area of sociology.
  • The "International perspective" section fails to develop common themes and use the case studies presented to develop these themes. You need to have a few paragraphs on the same topics in each section, each discussing one sociological theory or effect - for example you could discuss the importance of poverty in each region you mention, or the effect of religion, the effect of traditional medicine versus professional medicine. Presently this reads like a jumble of facts with no underlying themes and little interpretation. A case in point is the section on AIDS in Asia and Africa. The section on Aisa discusses the effects of culture on the spread of HIV, whilst the section on Africa discusses the effects of the disease and seems to entirely ignore culture, only briefly touching on poverty as a cause of disease. Is this supposed to indicate that African cultures are unrelated to the spread of HIV? Or that poverty is not a problem in Asia? The two sections talk past each other and do not contrast and compare the examples in order to illuminate similarities and differences. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly, I agree with Tim. Here are few more remarks:

  • Regarding the history section, I agree with Tim; also the "Patient-Practitioner Relationship" and "Role of health professions" section s are rather irrelevant there. Remember: this is about sociology of health and illness, not medical sociology. The section should describe 1) historical evolution of society's attitudes to health and illness and 2) the history of the sociology of health and illness.
  • The "International perspective" has improved in its structure, but as Tim notes above, it shows a lack of common approach, likely a result of the lack of collaboration and standardization between different group members. It is a good start, but now you need to unify the content of individuals sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you both. The whole article still needs a lot of work particularly regarding collaboration. Piotr, I know that the GA nomination is due today, but seeing as we need to rework the sections, what should we do? Nominate it anyways? --Acq123 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate it; the reviewer, User:Nikkimaria, is experienced with our assignment and I am sure she will give you much advice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything said. We definitely need to discuss how social change has historically impacted health and illness. Making the international section flow from region to region should also be addressed; Socio-economic status is a term applicable to all regions. Maybe someone can add how illnesses or risk factors in specific areas correlate with the majority SES of that region. Every regional section would need to first describe the average SES (% lower, middle, upper class, % ethnic groups, etc...). Then you would need to find illnesses that correlate with SES and explain how/why. A larger introduction and a more thorough historical analysis is necessary. I think we should turn the article in as is, and after it is reviewed we should then reconstruct/edit it. If we redo all of it now, it will be less cohesive then it is. --NellRoss4 (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can fix anything now, please do so. The more you fix before the formal review, the better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Maybe we should each just give short summary of our individual sections so that we can expand our lead (intro). T.starr.green 02:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

alot[edit]

i feel like we have alot to change that is going to take a substantial amount of time and we only have about an hr and a half to finish....i understand how the international sections need to collaborate but i think for now until we get the edits we should just focus on the thing that we have time for. (Jeaster89 (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If you cannot fix everything today, that's fine. What matters from now on is that you address the review comments in a prompt fashion in the coming days. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok good. I added some information to the historical background, but I just found an abundance of info and was unable to look through it all and add it. Im glad we still have time. T.starr.green 04:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

we can still continue to edit once we have nominated it correct? and starr, do you have references for the historical info you added? --Acq123 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes. and yes i just cited it. but, I'm still doing something wrong with the multiple references :-( T.starr.green 05:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you'll want to do for multiple references: the first time a certain ref appears, format it the way you've been doing - <ref name: "sociology"> Taylor, Steve and David Field. Sociology of Health and Health Care. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.</ref> (for example). The next time the same ref is used, all you have to write is <ref name="sociology"/> - that will get you the proper multiple reference format. However, if you're going to be referencing different pages in a book, you can't do it that way - you'll have to either cite each page individually or add a separate section for large reference works (like books) that are cited many times. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you'll want to go through and make sure your references are placed after the punctuation - for example, "The sun is hot.[1]" instead of "The sun is hot [1]." Nikkimaria (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sociology of health and illness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. I know you guys are relatively new at this, so if I'm not explaining something properly or if you need help, feel free to ask either here or at my talk page. To start out, I should mention that you made a typo when nominating this for GA - I've corrected that here. I'll post an in-depth review as soon as it's ready; in the meantime, you can work on fixing up the last few things raised earlier on the talk page. Also, two preliminary suggestions: edit the lead to make it a more encompassing summary of the article (and please correct grammar, flow, etc), and focus on making the different sections coalesce into a single topic - make the sections work together as part of a coherent whole, with inter-relations between the different topics. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to students: I'm going to be largely off-wiki for the weekend (post to my talk with any dire emergencies), and thus will not post the detailed review until my return. It would help if you would work on addressing these preliminary concerns in the interim. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This review is on hold pending the resolution of the copyright problems pointed out by Piotrus below. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues that I feel have been sufficiently dealt with have  Done added to them. Comments not yet adequately addressed are marked with  Not done. Please feel free to ask here or at my talk page if you have questions. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review[edit]

Here are some basic suggestions on how to get this to GA status. I'll post a more in-depth review once some of these are addressed.

Writing and formatting

Lead needs to be copy-edited for grammar, the rest should be read over for fluency and consistency. Be careful not to write this like a university essay: encyclopedic tone is important, but jargon should be clearly explained. Sections need to relate more. " Not done Jargon and fluency are definitely not fixed; the rest have been partially addressed, but could still use work.

Accuracy and verifiability

Referencing format needs to be more consistent. Current refs 27 and 28 are missing their details. Web references need access dates and publisher/author. Tertiary sources like encyclopedias should be avoided wherever possible. A couple of the books are missing page numbers, and ISBNs would be good for those missing them.

 Not done Still uses tertiary sources, some refs are still missing required information

Have we fixed this? T.starr.green 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No - see detailed review for remaining problems.
Broad

The lead covers some topics that should be covered in the main article but don't seem to be.

 Not done Partially addressed, but there's still more to be done here.
Neutrality

Certain words introduce editorial bias - look at WP:WTA, WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL for ideas on what needs to be changed. Be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view - sentences like "For most travelers visiting South America, any health risks are hugely outweighed by the tremendous pleasures and wonders that await you throughout the continent" are obviously biased and read like promotional material.

 Not done Problematic sentence removed, but some editorial words remain.

Is this better T.starr.green 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Still problematic, sorry. See below for details.
Images, Stability

Some minor problems with images, to be covered in later review. Stability is fine.

Detailed review[edit]

In addition to the remaining above concerns, here is a more detailed list of issues to be addressed:

Some more specific examples have been requested, and are included below where applicable. Please keep in mind that these are examples, and other instances of these errors are likely even if not mentioned.

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • Given the article's size, the lead section should be at least 3 paragraphs long, and should summarize the contents of the article
 Done Length is fine - summarizing could be done better
  • Avoid overusing vague terms of size (for example, "all" or "some") and additive terms (like "also" or "furthermore"

-This has been fixed, although i feel that there are someinstances when also is used that is beneficial to the page (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, there are occasions when those terms are beneficial. However, in the majority of situations, they are not, and they are still overused.
 Not done
"In some areas of Brazil roughly sixty percent of the inhabitants are use drugs and are HIV positive" - besides the grammatical error, this phrase is also problematic for its use of the word "some". Does some mean most? few? a certain city/state? certain kinds of areas (rural, urban, etc)? Furthermore, do you mean that the same 60% that are drug users are also HIV-positive? Are all those cases of HIV attributable to the drug use, or are there other contributing factors/risk-taking behaviours?

-This has been fixed (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Be careful of phrase like "has been" - these are often used incorrectly and can be overly vague
 Not done

-This has been adressed. (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

That particular instance is fine, but there are a couple of others...

I fixed this T.starr.green 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It looks the same to me.
"It has also been found that heredity has more of a bearing on health than social environment" - who found this? When was this found? How was this found? Is this still true?
  • Avoid using jargon without explanation. Also try to minimize verbosity. Your goal should be to explain the topic in a way that an average high-school student (or an adult with no sociological background) can easily understand
 Done, although could be improved
"The objective of this paradigm..." - the average reader will have no idea what a paradigm is.

-Thus has been fixed (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Try to avoid using very long or short paragraphs - 4-6 sentences is a good average
 Done
The first paragraph in "Methodology" is 16 sentences, the first paragraph of "Australia" is 2 sentences
    I think the paragraphs are at an appropriate length now.--NellRoss4 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire article needs to be read through for clarity and flow, and some sections need copy-editing
 Not done
  • The way the article is currently organized, everything is a subsection of "Historical background"

 Done

  • Per WP:Headings, only the first word of a section heading should be capitalized unless using proper nouns
This has been fixed. --Acq123 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • While you've done a good job wikilinking terms, a) the same term should not be linked more than once or twice, and b) per WP:LINK, unfamiliar/contextualizing terms (like Zoser) should be linked, while most plain English terms (like humanity) should not. Furthermore, disambiguation links should be avoided (this page will help you find such links)
 Not done
        Can you check if we are good on wikilinking now? --NellRoss4 (talk)

19:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Better, but there's still more to be done. Here's what I would suggest: look at the disambiguation links listed on this page, and either link directly to the relevant article or delink. Next (if possible - if not, try it yourself) find someone not in sociology and get them to read through the article. Any term they can define probably should not be linked; any term that they cannot define probably should (but only on first appearance). There are some exceptions (for example, health and illness should both be linked in the lead), but generally speaking that's a good guideline. Finally, find a computer that you have not used to work on this article (at the library, for example). Click on every blue link in order so it turns purple. If you come to a link that is already purple (meaning you opened that article with an earlier link), delete the link.
  • Avoid using personal pronouns like "we"
 Done
"From his account we can see how factors outside the disease itself can have an impact on society" - should be reworded to avoid "we"
  • Make sure to give the reader some context to what you are talking about. For example, you discuss the Romans, and then proceed to general terms, but then you suddenly start talking about the Black report and the conservative government. What country are you in now?
 Not done
This specific instance (the Black Report) has been fixed. Are there any other instances where this is a problem?--Acq123 (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mosaic Code should be linked or identified; in the North America section you need to clearly differentiate between American (US) and North American; Aymara and Mapuche should be linked.
  • Avoid asking questions, especially if you don't answer them
 Done - that's fine now
    I found one question on our wiki page. I have adjusted it, but are there any more instances where we state a question? --NellRoss4 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You argue that this topic is not the same as Medical sociology, but this article is in a category called "Medical sociology" - is there a better category?
 Done

In the article we explain what the sociology of health and illness is. We have to explain how it differs from medical sociology in the article? T.starr.green 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

No, you do that in the lead already. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see a listing of categories, which includes Category:Medical sociology. Since you say that this article is not the same as Medical sociology, it shouldn't be in that category.
Someone has removed the medical sociology category. --Acq123 (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" should come before References

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • Citations should appear immediately after punctuation with no space, and there should then be a space before the next word (i.e. formatted "fact.[1] More")
 Done
" These students apparently brought the virus back from Mexico and infected their classmates [30]." - citation should be after the period
I went through the whole article a few times, and I believe all of the references are properly placed now. --Acq123 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Australia part of Oceania?
I chose that heading because we were dividing up continents and Australia is considered a continent while Oceania is not, but did not want people to be confused and think that Oceania was not being included and only Australia as a nation was being discussed. I'd appreciate a suggestion on how to clarify that or improve it. Thanks! --Acq123 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could have the first sentence say "The continent of Australia...", or just have it link to Australia (continent)
Thank you! I edited the heading and the first sentence to address this. --Acq123 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • North America is not a "nation", the "United State" does not exist, and there is more to North America than just the US and Canada - Mexico? Caribbean? Central America (potentially)?
 Done
  • "Malaria affects every country in South America except two which are: Uruguay, Chile, and the Falkland Islands" - the Falklands are not a country, and counting them makes 3
This has been addressed. --Acq123 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Okay, but you now seem to be saying that malaria is found in the Falklands, where earlier you said it wasn't - which is correct?
  • Anything that is someone's opinion must be cited, as must any statistics, quotations, or unusual facts
  • I don't have access to many of your references, so I'll assume that they support what you say they do without plagiarizing. However, the people who have decided to use only one citation per paragraph should double-check to make sure everything in that paragraph is covered by the citation
  • Citations needed for:
  • Although Imhotep's achievements are based on speculation and conjecture, he is said to have written the Edwin Smith papyrus, which contains anatomical observations, ailments, and cures.
 Done
This sentence is no longer in the article.--Dam59 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • became one of the most famous historians in antiquity
 Done
  • Approximately 25% of the population died of the disease
 Done
  • A good indicator of overall health is a populations growth. The faster the growth, the healthier the society is
 Done
  • HIV/AIDS is the leading epidemic that affectvs the social welfare of Africa
       I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
 Done
  • Two-thirds of the worlds HIV population is located in Subaharan Africa. Since the epidemic started more than 15 million Africans have died by complications with HIV/AIDS
 Done
       I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The HIV/AIDS epidemic is reducing the average life expectancy of people in Africa by twenty years. The age range with the highest death rates, due to HIV, are those between the ages of 20 and 49 years. The fact that this age range is when adults acquire most of their income they cannot afford to send their children to school, due to the high medication costs. It also removes the people who could help aid in responding to the epidemic in some way.
       I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
 Done
  • West Indian respondents whose lay culture teaches them to reject long-term drug therapy opted instead for folk remedies in higher numbers than the 'white' respondents. What can be seen here is that some people will choose to ignore a doctors expert advice and will employ 'lay consultation' instead.
 Done
  • There are three forms of medication that will help cure Malaria a question of what if the person does not have the money or proper doctors to help them with the matter? Most books and literature that discuss Malaria talk about it in terms of tourists and not natives. They have a more lightherted tine because in most cases tourist have good doctors available so they can get the proper care to overcome the disease, but what about the natives?
 Done, although should be reworded for neutrality and tone
  • There are entire paragraphs in "Africa" that aren't referenced
 Done-I fixed this i believe (Jeaster89 (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The second and fourth paragraphs currently have no references.
  • All book citations need page numbers. It would be nice if they all had ISBNs
 Not done
Citation 2, "Conrad, Peter (2008). The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives. Macmillan Publishers. ISBN 1-4292-0558-X." is a book and therefore needs page numbers
  • Referencing format should be more consistent
 Not done
Compare Ref 11 (Fredrickson J, & Kanabus, A. Impact of HIV/AIDS on Africa. 2009.http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm) with Ref 15 (John Powers. "The Spread of Confucianism". Retrieved Dec. 1, 2009.). Both are web references, yet they are formatted quite differently.
  • Generally speaking, tertiary sources should be avoided
 Not done
Tertiary sources include dictionaries, encyclopedias and some textbooks. One example is Citation 5 "Gordon Marshall. "health and illness, sociology of." A Dictionary of Sociology. 1998. Encyclopedia.com. 16 Nov. 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>."
  • Sites like eNotes are generally not considered to be reliable sources
 Not done
  • Identical sources should be named and formatted per WP:REFNAME (which most are, but there are a couple that aren't)
All of the multiple references should be fixed now. --Acq123 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Not quite, you missed a couple. For example, current refs 5 and 10 (Marshall) are the same.
Marshall reference has been fixed, I don't think there are any other repeats. --Acq123 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All web references need access dates
 Not done
Ref 12 (Epidemics: Malaria, AIDS, Other Disease: Post-colonial Africa. (2004). In Encyclopedia of African History. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/routafricanhistory/epidemics_malaria_aids_other_disease_postcolonial_africa) has no indication of when you accessed that site
Quick question: if we included a url link to a book when we referenced it, do we need to include an access date for that url? --Acq123 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)-This has been fixed. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Technically yes; that being said, I would be fine if that link was not included at all.
  • Also remember that any new material added after this review was done must also be adequately referenced.

Broad[edit]

  • Some areas are already in need of updating - for example, there are now many more than 6 swine flu cases reported in Canada (there's an epidemic brewing on native reserves which you could mention), and most are not connected with travel to Mexico
 Not done
  • The article needs to be more cohesive and more focused on sociology of health and illness
 Not done

How do you suggest this? T.starr.green 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of this is covered below, and in earlier comments above; other than that, take a look at the Methodology section, and make sure everything in the article is relevant to that.
  • Make sure the sections connect to each other somehow, especially in the region-focused sections
 Not done
I thought that they were because each section includes information about most common diseases in that country, AIDS/HIV, religion, economy, and traditional/professional medicine. T.starr.green 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be a good way to organize things. However, the article as it stands doesn't actually do that. Take a look at the section on Africa for example: the entire section focuses on HIV/AIDS and what problems it causes for the society and the economy. It's a good discussion, but the scope is limited in a way that the section on Asia, for example, is not.

However..we all added aspects of disease, traditional, medicine and economics in each section, so i dont understand how it is not connecting. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Those aspects are present to some degree, yes; however, the scope is problematic. If you look for example at the Africa section, those aspects are discussed only in relation to HIV/AIDS, whereas in the Asia section they are discussed on a broader scale.

Neutrality[edit]

  • It is important to maintain an encyclopedic tone at all times - neither conversational nor academic (wiki articles shouldn't sound like college papers)
 Not done
"This topic requires a global approach of analysis because the influence of societal factors varies throughout the world. This will be demonstrated through discussion of the major diseases of each continent." - phrasing typical of college paper. "Sadly, enough people whom have chronic HDB will continue to get HDV" - "sadly" is a red flag for conversationalism, as it's an emotion word and should be avoided.
  • Look at WP:WTA and WP:Weasel - certain words introduce an editorial bias and should be avoided
 Not done
"Not only does the child have the opportunity to lose their parents but they also may lose their childhood" - editorializing.

I fixed this (Jeaster89 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Edited the end of the 'Europe' section as it sounded very biased and strange, hopefully better now 212.90.83.50 (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

No issues here

Images[edit]

  • "In response to the Spanish Influenza 1918" is a rather vague caption - what is the response? Why is this relevant? Furthermore, the Spanish Influenza is not covered in the article
 Done
  • Reflexology also isn't covered, and more context should be given for that image
 Done, but caption could use copy-editing
Both of the above images have been replaced with more relevant ones. --Acq123 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption for the map of Africa is a copy-paste of the description at the image page, which is redundant. Instead, give a summary of the description and contextualize is with what is being discussed in that section of the article
This has been addressed. --Acq123 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • The caption of the obesity graph is somewhat redundant ("Data was collected or compiled between from 1996 to 2003"), body mass index and OECD should be linked
This has been addressed. --Acq123 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • Captions for new images should be descriptive, grammatically correct and relevant
The caption for the alcohol map is "World map showing alcohol consumption around the world". That's helpful, but a) having "world" twice is redundant, and b) the reader needs some indication of what the colours mean

Using templates and <ref name= > makes it much easier[edit]

Hello all, impeccable work on the article so far, Kudos all round.

I would however give a few pointers on how to correctly CITE and how to use <ref name= > and the use of citation templates.

The most common ref you are going to use for this article is {{cite book}} reading through the template pages should give you a very good idea of how to use them. You don't have to fill out all the information on every cite. however the more information the merrier. title= is the only field that is compulsory for {{cite book}}.

So using Globalization in World History as an example you would fill it out like this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins |last2= |first2= |editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title=Globilization in World History|trans_title= |url= |format= |accessdate= |edition= |series= |volume= |date= |year=2003|month= |origyear= |publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]] |language= |isbn=0393979423|oclc= |doi= |id= |page= |pages= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</ref>

As you can see this has left rather a large amount of fields unfilled, that's okay, in fact we can get rid of them, leaving us with this: <ref>{{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}</ref>


Now, obviously, you are using the book multiple times through the article so rather than cutting an pasting each and every time I'm going to show you how to use <ref name= > so what we are going to do is give the reference a name, we'll call it "hopkins", but you can all it anything "Globalization", "global" or even "asghd" or "iu43gh", ANYTHING, but to make it easy to remember we'll just stick with "hopkins" (it is cAsE SenSItiVE) so make sure you stick with either upper- or lower-case. So you simply put in <ref name= > the first time that you use the ref instead of <ref> and then every time you want to use that ref you simply put in <ref name=hopkins/> So now every time that you want to reference Globalization in World History all you need to do is put in <ref name=hopkins/>.

Now you want to quote an individual page, but you don't want to have to cut and paste and modify the cite each time you ref a page, so (as odd as this may sound) ignore what I just told you. Well, not entirely. we'll still use <ref name= > so when we want to quote page three multiple times we'll call our new ref "hop3" and when we quote page 21 we'll call that "hop21", but again it can be anything so now we'll fill the article full of this; <ref name=hop3>Hopkins 2003, page 3</ref>[2] and this; <ref name=hop21>Hopkins 2003, page 21</ref>[3], then whenever you want to ref page three you simply put in <ref name=hop3/>[2] and to ref page 21 use <ref name=hop21/>[3]

Then we need to split the references section at the bottom in two: ==Notes== and ==References== in ==Notes== we'll stick the {{reflist}} template, and since it is a particularly large amount of references will split it into 4 columns by writing it like this: {{reflist|4}} this will automatically list all the <ref>'s throughout the article and sort them into 4 even columns for us.

Under the ==References== We'll list each of the books like this: {{cite book |last1=Hopkins |first1= A.G.|authorlink1= A.G._Hopkins|title=Globilization in World History|year=2003|publisher=Norton|location=[[New York City]]|isbn=0393979423}}. That way when people see "Hopkins 2003, Page 3" listed under ==Notes== they'll know to look for it under ==References== for Hopkins name.

If you've done it all properly it should look like below.

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/japanese-encephalitis?ask_return=Japanese+Encephalitis
  2. ^ a b Hopkins 2003, page 3
  3. ^ a b Hopkins 2003, page 21

References[edit]

Hopkins, A.G. (2003). Globilization in World History. New York City: Norton. ISBN 0393979423.

You may also want to check out the various other citation templates and use those in the article.Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

The South American section needs to be properly rewritten to address issues raised (WP:COPYVIO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The African section also has problems: lots of sentences are taken directly from here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And North American section has problems with content from the source as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC

Hey i fixed the African section. I dont know where the sources went or content....? (Jeaster89 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure why you have removed about half of the article content ([3]). You should be rewriting your section on Africa. Can you explain how your last edit is fixing the problem - you have changed a lot of content all over the article? It seems to me you've restored one of the old versions of the article (including the problematic South American section). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't a joke, so don't treat it like one.[edit]

What the hell is going on with this article?! This should be treated like any other academic paper that you would write and that means you cannot simply use Plagiarism to finish your section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dam59 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we purposely plagarized parts of this article. If we cited a source directly...we thought we were allowed as long as the part has a reference and is cited. (Jeaster89 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Copying and pasting text from a source, and then attributing it, is still a form of plagiarism. See our online syllabus, section on plagiarism which contains further explanations and resources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be...I fixed my section and piotr said my edits were good..(Jeaster89 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I said they are a good start, there is still a lot of content to be rewritten. One of many sentences that are taken exactly from the source in the African section, still present in the article: "The impact that AIDS has had on average life expectancy is partly attributed to child mortality, as increasing numbers of babies are born with HIV infections acquired from their mothers" (source). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am addressing the issues with my section. T.starr.green 02:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

At this point South America is not a copyvio anymore, but it needs to be expanded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to sound like an asshole but I am just concerned about our grade and am sure we can all fix this. I think it is going to be really hard to get GA status.--Dam59 (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Africa still needs a revamp. MLauba (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; the GA review cannot go forward till the problems with Africa and South America are resolved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Africa section will be finished by tonight..now that i have read what piotr sent me, i understand what can and cant be done. (Jeaster89 (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]


I just need to add things in my portion connecting it to sociology.....otherwise the content explaining the diseases I was looking at is there.T.starr.green 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello Group. Our meeting went well today, but I wanted to give Piotr and our GA reviewers an idea of where we are headed. Dan will be updating the History section. This will be a chronological analysis of social change in relation to health and illness. He will also incorporate the sections on Imhotep and that other section, I forget the name, into the historical analyses. The professionalization/profession section should come next. Starr's section on Methodology is below this. This will explain how we will plan to address the topic we presented in the introduction. Jon is adding pictures that relate to our article. Maps and tables of regional disease is the image theme that is working for us so far. Alicia is adding information to the introduction to make it a formal thesis of what our topic plans to address. I am editing each section, formatting to the wiki style and editing for grammar, sentence structure, and narrative voice. Lastly, each group member is reorganizing and editing their regional section to flow in unison: First, the most prevalent diseases are explained in detail, including the relationship between HIV-AIDS and their region. Second, a brief description of typical religion and tradition is related to social changes in health and illness. Third, a discussion of local economy is important. A description of the class system in relation to their medicinal practices, i.e. rich Europeans might go to a private doctor while poor Latin Americans might see a Shaman. Each section should conclude with an understanding of the regional society and why those aspects of society play a part in local health and illness patterns. All of these tasks should be redone by Tuesday at midnight. The entire article should be perfect by Friday at noon. The article must be submitted by Tuesday, the 8th. Tada!--NellRoss4 (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have the plagiarism/close paraphrasing concerns been addressed already? If so, I can post a more detailed GA review for you to work on...Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yess they have been adressed..and everything has been re-written from scratch (Jeaster89 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Guys if possible i think that whenever we have addressed something that nikkimaria pointed out in the GA review, we should comment under that bulleted point on the review page to let her know that the problem has been fixed. --Acq123 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok will do T.starr.green 03:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

HIV maps[edit]

Do we want some of these maps?

Image:ChinaHIVAIDSmap.svg
Image:People living with HIV AIDS world map.PNG
Image:AIDS and HIV prevalence.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dam59 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first and second would be good.T.starr.green 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

but if we don't need both. then definitely the second. T.starr.green 01:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)


Someone should add the world map of malaria onto our page. It is on the Malaria wiki page under Epidimiology. Those maps match the other maps we use. I would add it myself but I forgot how I did it the first time. --NellRoss4 (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to detailed review[edit]

I have addressed some of the issues reported by the reviewer that were within sections I wrote.--Dam59 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good. I'm still trying to work on the content of my sections, but I should be able to look at the issues of my sections by Friday before we meet Friday. Hope that is ok. T.starr.green 03:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm still working on the lead but will have it done early tomorrow. Also, as I'm writing it it doesn't make sense that we have a role of health professionals section since our intro says that that it part of the sociology of medicine. any objections to me deleting it? --Acq123 (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no objections--Dam59 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try moving it to another article instead of just deleting it. You put some work into sections that may be off topic - no need to waste your work; there is room on Wikipedia for most good faithed contributions (and extra credit in the course for them as well). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no objection to moving it to another article. I will finish my section tomorrow also. I'm having difficulties finding detailed info about the religion and traditions in South America, but I'm sure I'll find something tomorrow. T.starr.green 06:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)


Piotr- I added the Professional aspects of our article to the Medical Sociology page. Does this give me extra credit for editing another page since I originally wrote this section?--NellRoss4 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please include a proper reference there. Leave me a note on my talk page when you are done and I'll evaluate the section for extra credit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question?[edit]

I want to define effort reward imbalance and I was wondering should I use quotes or just try to reword the definition? T.starr.green 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

Never mind I decided to just write the definition in my own words. T.starr.green 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

Pictures[edit]

I added more pictures and added the traditional, religon, and economical aspect to my section. is there any other specific pictures you want. (Jeaster89 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Final Edits[edit]

Nikkimaria- Our group has responded to your editing suggestions and we were hoping you could confirm that we are ready to re-submit our article. Thanks for your help. --NellRoss4 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission is unnecessary - if my concerns have been adequately addressed (which I will check shortly), then the article will be passed as GA. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hey everyone! How should work on the things that still need fixed in the article? T.starr.green 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikkimaria- could you give more specific examples on your review so we can know what we specifically need to change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC) T.starr.green 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check out the GA review and detailed review sections above.--Dam59 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC


Hi Group! I am not sure if we are meeting this week, so I wanted to try and communicate our plan via wikitalk. Here is what we need to accomplish;

1. GET RID OF vague words like "all, some, also, furthermore" or words that sound biased, phrases like "has been", personal pronouns like "we", and our argument regarding Medical Sociology's difference to our article.

2. EDIT CONTENT FOR jargon and verbosity, flow of information esp. from section to section, and transitions to make more sense to our audience. Also, refocus regional section to match proposal stated under Methodology. Tone should sound encyclopedic and not conversational. Also, accuracy of information should be updated to current times and paragraphs should be 4-6 sentences.

3. CORRECT CITATIONS BY placing them directly after punctuations without space, cite Africa section, add page numbers and ISBNs for books, do not use tertiary sources, esp. E-Notes, web citations need access dates, Imhotep needs a citation, and referencing in general needs to be consistent in format. --NellRoss4 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: I've addressed editing/biased phrasing in the methodology and South America sections. I have also added page numbers and ISBNs to my book sources. I just have to add a brief part about religion in South America. Does it look ok? T.starr.green 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

South America still needs some serious grammar and style checking. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group: Is there any specific tasks you want me to do? T.starr.green 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

Oh yeah.....I have been using MLA format for my references. What is everyone else using? T.starr.green 06:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to students: Even if you think your individual section(s) is perfect, a) that doesn't mean it is, and b) that's not good enough to get the article passed if other sections still have problems. You should pitch in to help resolve problems in other sections; your grade depends (I believe) on your contribution to the article as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; it is after all a collaborative assignment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:28, 8 December 2009.

Well I think we all thought that before we moved on to another group members section that we should address the problems in our specific section first. That's the wrong idea?T.starr.green 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I added my citations to the certain paragraphs in "Africa" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeaster89 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not have to resubmit our article for GA status because it will increase levels with the improvement of the article, then why are we still at start-class. This article does not feel like start class so there definitely is a lack of motivation to make the article better if it is not considered better.--NellRoss4 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can assess articles, with the exception of FA-class, and if very few instances, A- and B-classes. See WP:ASSESSMENT for details. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr- Are you saying that our article is A or B class? T.starr.green 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)

Sociology of health or medical sociology[edit]

I am knowledgeable on sociology in general but totally uninformed with respect to these areas... is there really a justified distinction between the sociology of health and medical sociology? Could these pages be merged, for the benefit of having one unified strong article, and 'medical sociology' perhaps included as a subheading?--Tomsega (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David explained the difference in an above post, so ill paste it here. Hopefully this helps "Sociology of Health and Illness is different from Medical Sociology since the former attempts to explain how different cultures respond to disease. Sociology of Illness (or Health and Illness) should be a unique article since the Medical Sociology article should study the effects of medical institutions on health.Our proposed article would bring in aspects that are outside the medical field. How do different cultures deal with illness? Are there differences in prognosis between culture groups? Our article will be able to investigate places where no medical institutions exist but still examine how the people deal with illness"

T.starr.green 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable, thank you.
It's interesting how this article is an absolute flurry of activity, when we can't even get a GA reviewer for the main sociology article!! (hint hint, anybody) --Tomsega (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, somebody with a good knowledge of the difference between sociology of health and medical sociology should probably sort out the medical sociology article itself.. I'm not sure it acknowledges these differences appropriately..--Tomsega (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE[edit]

Hey everyone!

I just wanted to tell you that we have until about Monday to make any last minute changes to the article. Also, I believe we can do any extra credit blogs until that time also.

Hope everyone has a good finals week and a good break.

T.starr.green 20:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.starr.green (talk • contribs)


Blahhh I have mono and am in my death bed. Sorry for my lack of effort during these last few days, but I am too sick to think. --NellRoss4 (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

corrections[edit]

There were alot of stuff i tried to fix and left a comment but the red x is up and im not sure if you looked at them or not. (Jeaster89 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/index.php
    Triggered by \bworldlifeexpectancy\.com\/index\.php on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Cultures[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2024 and 28 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maia.gouaze (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cobriskie.

— Assignment last updated by RoccNRoll (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sociology_of_health_and_illness&oldid=1213765693"