User talk:Lee.ji/sandbox

"In 2017, sucralose was the most common sugar substitute used in the manufacturing of foods and beverages, having 30% of the global market projected to become $2.8 billion in collective value by 2021." →This needs to be cited. Instead of using multiple journals that display primary/original research, see if you can find any literature/systematic reviews that combine all the primary research into a single paper of its own. These reviews can help you expand on how sweeteners affect weight gain and their multiple health effects. Make sure your sources are reliable and the results are presented in a neutral point of view. You could benefit from adding a small paragraph about weight gain in the lead section. It can help a reader understand what the section will be about and give them a good introduction. Dsnu (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney's Review

The article is done really well with what you have edited so far! I like the topic too, and the table setting for the weight gain section is a good structure for the studies and it is easy for the reader pull the main idea right away. I also liked the additional studies added below the table too - perhaps some can be put into the table too?

In the first paragraph of weight gain, I think adding in a citation/source would be a good touch so I can look at the epi study that you are referencing. Also, some citations on at the bottom on the references list have some red markings to check/fix the date! That is easy to fix. I know this is only the editing stage, but adding on one or two more sections about the health benefits/consequences of sugar substitutes would be awesome. I think it would add more substance to the article. In reference to the comment above, I looked at the original article and I think the cancer section, sugar alcohol sections, and metabolic disorders section would be create sections to add on to. Cb31337 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was re-looking at the article, specifically the cost section. It mentions it has lower costs, but nothing is specified. Maybe you can add on this section and provide comparison prices? Cb31337 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gina, Per our discussion in class, there are tricky guidelines regarding medical and health-related content on Wikipedia, but I think that by referring to some review articles in your WP article, that will still allow you to refer to some of the material contained in the primary sources (but they wouldn't be considered primary sources if contained in a review article). It also might work well to describe some of the research in narrative form rather than a table. Further, if you would like to work on other aspects of the original article, you could expand some of the other sections that are perhaps less contested in that they might allow you to reference more objective, fact-based sources instead of research studies. Amyc29 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]