User talk:Fakeroute/sandbox

Peer review

For Final Project-- I thought that the article was excellent, especially the sections describing the different mathematical elements described. Something that might be interesting to add, if feasible, would be an extended list of modern mathematicians/mathematical works which directly cite Jiu Zhang Suan Shu. I would also love to learn more about how Euclid and Jiu Zhang Suan Shu diverge, perhaps that wil enter your scipedia article!

Peer review

I think the information presented in your contribution is largely a good addition to the Zhong Nanshan article. I would suggest that you make another pass through the article to correct for grammar, as I noticed some odd syntactical errors. Also, there are many examples of opinionated/hyperbolic language that does not really belong on Wikipedia. Examples would include "the heroic fight against SARS", "luckily it was not SARS", and "determined and strong enough to stand up against authority". Haveagooddavis (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

General Notes: I doubt that anyone will object to the relevance of your (very strong) addition to the Zhong Nanshan entry. Like the first review, I have some similar (somewhat redundant) recommendations about Wikipedia-style language. I think that it's less helpful to write about improvements paragraph-by-paragraph, so I reproduced your entry with the changes that I think make it more Wikipedia-like:

On 20 December 2002, Zhong Nanshan received the second case of SARS as director of Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases. Over the next month, 28 similar cases were reported in Zhongshan alone. On 21 January 2003, Zhong announced the discovery of Atypical pneumonia at an emergency meeting of physicians.[1][2]

On 28 January 2003, Zhong suspected he had contracted pneumonia while operating an X-ray. To prevent panic, Zhong elected not to be treated, hoping that he had developed a previously-known form of pneumonia, despite his advanced age.

Zhong recuperated after 8 days, during which his wife Li Shaofen treated him. Zhong returned to Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases to direct the fight against SARS. On 11 February 2003, at a press conference of the Guangdong Department of Health, Zhong explained the disease and its symptoms, insisting that SARS is "preventable" and "curable".[2]

Zhong significantly contributed to SARS research by innovating the Non-invasive ventilation method, which increased patients' oxygen intake and alleviated pain. Zhong also suggested the use of Cortisone for advanced cases of the disease. Zhong's methods significantly lowered the mortality rate in severe cases to 13% while simultaneously decreasing total treatment time.

Zhong's use of Cortisone challenged a February, 2003 report by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention that normal Chlamydiae is the direct cause of Atypical pneumonia, making antibiotics the only legally prescribed treatment. Zhong insisted on the moderate use of Cortisone based on in-clinic observations of the disease, despite believing that the political controversy would bring dishonor and defamation[2]. Zhong's methodology was later accepted as the standard treatment for all SARS patients after efforts by the Guangdong government based on Zhong's success rate [2].

When delegates led by Dr. Evans from the World Health Organization visited China in early April, Zhong presented the characteristics of SARS as well as the treatment and prevention method in China. His presentation was greatly praised and widely influenced severe acute respiratory syndrome treatment globally [2].

Unfortunately, I'm illiterate when it comes to your sources (and suspect that most other HIPS students are); it may be useful to find someone with a background in Chinese to offer some recommendations on your references, if needed. Wswendt (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

I agree completely with the above peer reviewers. Your contribution is really good and the only changes I see as necessary are the stylistic ones noted above (grammar, dating, paragraph organization). One thing I noticed is that all the accolades at the bottom are listed chronologically, except for "Awards and Prizes" section. - User: Bradley Goldsmith, Feb. 16, 2020

The last sentence of the section on the History of the Book should be taken out since you have already discussed why the translation is not exactly precise previously. Some of the wording in this addition makes the topic slightly confusing. The wording and additions are particularly dense in terms of style of writing. There are also some grammatical errors that could be easily fixed. Overall a very good contribution to the page. Redheadweek13 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)