User talk:Homming2

Welcome!

Hello, Homming2, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (User:Homming2/sandbox → Iron)

As you're already autoconfirmed, you can make the requested addition yourself. Regards ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron

Your sandbox material on iron in the immune system is not something that WP:RM handles; that process is for renaming pages, not merging content. You can simply copy your sandbox material and add it to the Iron article as a new section. However, some cleanup is needed:

Please see MOS:HEADINGS; we do not put headings in title case, and even "Immune system" is not an appropriate heading in an article titled Iron; try "In the human immune system", perhaps.
However, we do use title case for books and journals (see MOS:TITLES), so Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease and Clinical Biochemistry of Domestic Animals should be rendered thus.
One of your citations is broken, and has text in it that rendered as "M.),,". Looking at the code, |last=M.),|first=Murphy, Kenneth (Kenneth|others=Weaver, Casey, should be |last1=Murphy |first2=Kenneth M. |last2=Weaver |first2=Casey.
The |edition= parameter just takes an ordinal number, e.g. |edition=11th and |edition=9th; your output reads "11th ed. ed" and "Ninth edition ed".
"Office of Dietary Supplements - Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Iron" is not a title, but a mashup of partial publisher and title. You want |title=Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Iron|publisher=Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health.
The |location= parameter is not used without a publisher, so |location=Vienna, Austria should be removed, as should |location=New York, NY, USA.
Even when included, the |location= parameter does not need to state the obvious about major world cities, so it would be |location=Vienna and |location=New York. Even if it were something like |location=Weed, Texas it would be written that way; we don't use postal abbreviations, nor add "USA" or "US" or "U.S." to American state names, with the exception of Georgia, since there's a country by the same name (in which case use, e.g., |location=Athens, Georgia, US, for conciseness.
We don't add punctuation to the end of parameter values (Ross, A. Catharine. results in a stray . in the output, and Weaver, Casey, produces as stray comma). But the location can generally just be omitted, unless there are multiple publishers with the same name in different places, or the publisher is obscure.
All the cites with URLs should have |access-date=, to indicate when someone actually checked that the source exists and says what it says.
Please don't mix-and-match citation styles. Since you're using |first1=, |last1=, etc., the proper markup for the Ross source is |last=Ross|first=A. Catherine. The choice of |others= here was wrong to begin with, since there's only one author. That's generally a deprecated parameter anyway; we get cleaner metadata with individually coded surnames and given names.
A |language=en is never needed.
{{Cite news}} is only used for news sources.
The Ward, et al., source had two conflicting dates.

Hope this helps. The main way to avoid citation errors is to never do anything you don't actually need to, and do it consistently. E.g., start with one of:

{{cite book|first= |last= |title= |publisher= |isbn=}}
{{cite web|first= |last= |title= |work= |url= }}
{{cite journal|first= |last= |title= |work= |volume= |issue= |date= |url= }}

and fill in the blanks, adding parameters like |doi= and |oclc= and |last2=|first2= as needed. If you get in this habit, it becomes second nature to copy-paste citation data, then fill in the parameter names, too, building a cite template around the details (and removing lines breaks and other mess).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron and immune system; references

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding this edit, evidence addressing human health and diseases has to be supported by high-quality sources, as described in WP:MEDRS, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analysis of multiple high-quality clinical trials, described in WP:MEDASSESS -- see the section on evidence quality. The authority source for an essential nutrient like iron affecting systemic immune health, as for all nutrients, is the US Institute of Medicine, which published the document on iron here, still used to establish daily intake levels for the US and Canada, as based on disease susceptibility and health effects confirmed by scientific consensus. Your sources are not WP:MEDRS quality. Another good source reviewing iron and its health properties is here. Other note: it is not useful for common WP users to use your book reference such as this. Please find high-quality published online reviews going directly to the evidence, and best of luck with your editing. Copy to SMcCandlish. Following your response here, if you wish. --Zefr (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the US Institute of Medicine is an authoritative source; it's not like Europe and other parts of the world aren't capable of quality research. But, yeah, primary research papers aren't good for making claims about human health. Any bit of peer-reviewed research is liable to be overturned any day now by additional research or even just rigorous testing of the prior research. And there are an increasing number of "junk journals" that rush to publication without sufficient peer review to begin with. This is why literature reviews are important, assessing scientific consensus based on the current state-of-the-art across the relevant research, not just one research team's interpretation of their own data. We do appreciate the work you put into that short section, and that level of source digging might be good for a non-medical topic. We're just really strict about those, because people have (for better or worse) a tendency to treat what they read about medicine here as authoritative, and might make personal health choices based on it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS tutorial

Fyi, Homming2 and SMcCandlish: a good WPEducation guide for medical editing here. --Zefr (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]