Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:10, 8 December 2014 editQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Wording: The source does give examples.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024 edit undoRrmisra (talk \| contribs)57 edits →Proposed Editing Plan: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Old AfD multi \|date=27 December 2022 \|result='''keep''' \|page=Health effects of electronic cigarettes}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{Old prod\|nom=S Marshall\|nomdate=2022-12-26}}
	{{WikiProject Medicine\|class=start\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
	== Perfect Example of Bloat ==
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=mid}}
	<b>I copied this from the as the section being discussed became part of this new page.</b> ] 02:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
			}}
			{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=Nicotine}}
			{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=Nicotine poisoning}}
			{{Copied\|from=Safety of electronic cigarettes\|to=2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak}}
			{{annual readership}}
			{{Archives}}

			==Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II==
	The Environmental impact section, Relates to one source saying there is a gap in our knowledge. This doesn't need to be in the article, it's practically crystal ball. As yet we don't know the effects of e-cigarettes on the environment we also don't know their impact on souffles and space dust. A source saying "We don't know anything" doesn't mean the article needs a new section. Someone with a different position from me on e-cigs should turn up with some shears and trim this into a reasonable article. If I did it I'm sure some MED folks would claim bias towards e-cigs. ] (]) 12:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UCSF/Foundations_II_(Summer_2024) \| assignments = ], ], ], ] \| reviewers = ], ], ], ] \| start_date = 2024-06-01 \| end_date = 2024-08-17 }}
	:There is way to much speculation and we dont need embellishments and small sections on speculative information. The article is already swimming in speculative information with the same speculation being repeated. How many times do you need to repeat something in different locations? Environmental impact sounds like its talking about hazardous waste. ] 13:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	:There was another claim from that same literary review, it was placed in Toxicology when it was clear from the source that it was talking about environmental impact of how its made. Its really not a health effect topic. I wasnt sure where to put it, so I put it in that environmental area until its discussed. This appears to be a fringe area, with very little weight.] 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	:: I'm ] that at some point it will be an area with enough information to deserve a section. E-cigs involve the manufacture of additional lithium batteries, disposable wicks and coils, production of the juice etc. However there's really been very little study of it so far. ] (]) 14:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::More than likely there will be down the road. This literary review didnt come to any conclusions other than the more study is needed. Someone might do it down the road, but it could be years. Its just way to premature, speculative, and has little weight at this point. ] 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{ping\|User:SPACKlick}} Today, QuackGuru, thinking that it was only a problem because of only a few sentence and made it viable. The problem isnt that it only has a few sentences, the problem is weight ] and pure speculation ] with no other studies talking about it. The reason other speculation is allowed is because there is more than one review on the topic, so it has weight of some degree.
	* cites this source:
	:*{{cite journal\|last1=Chang\|first1=H.\|title=Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes\|journal=Tobacco Control\|volume=23\|issue=Supplement 2\|year=2014\|pages=ii54–ii58\|issn=0964-4563\|doi=10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480}}
	:The source is presumed to be useful because it was published by experts in the field. I oppose the deletion of material published by expert reviewers in a field who are presenting the best available information. ]] 23:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	:I agree with Bluerasberry. ] (]) 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
	::] Says it's wrong to base an entire article on primary sources. An awful lot of this article is direct from primary sources. We have no idea of the impact of this paper, or if the comment that the current status of environmental effects is largely unknown will amount to anything. This article needs to focus more on meta-analyses and collective reviews and get away from posting every statement from every interest group and every piece of speculation in every published paper is my point. One scientific paper speculating that there may be an environmental impact especially when couching that speculation in the distinct lack of evidence in either direction is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in an article, let alone a section. ] (]) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Per ]
	::{{Quote\|text=Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.}}
	::One journal article is a tiny minority, it shouldnt be included at all. Perhaps a one line that says something like "A review by Cheng raised concerns about environmental impact from e-cigaretts" But a but a whole section places it in a position of prominence and gives way to much coverage for a single article on the subject. Find 4 or 5 and maybe it can be expanded. This isnt silencing a reliable source, this is giving it the appropriate weight when compared to all the other points of view with larger number of reliable sources. ] specifically addresses this.
	::{{Quote\|text=Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view.}}
	::There isnt even a opposite viewpoint to make a controversy that needs to be addressed. Adding all that from one source is just premature. We have had this same discussion on McNeil, it didnt have the weight, neither does this one. ] 02:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Stating "A review by Cheng" is a clear violation. A ] compliant review should be given its ] weight. This is not a paper or a primary source. It is a recent review from experts which makes it the mainstream view. This is about quality. There are a number of ] sources covering this subject but we are reaching a higher standard by using a review. I can expand the section by also using the minority view of secondary sources if editors wish. ] (]) 05:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::That would be against ]. We should not lower the standards just to put in material that isnt just speculation, but highly speculative. If you want to use ] instead of ] fine, they both lead to the same section of the page. Its due weight is little to none as shown in ]. The reason the provided sentence used the name of the review is its the only review to have this info, its a lone wolf. Its not a ] violation because the whole thing is just opinion, which you are adding as facts, thats a ] problem. ]
	::::Must have missed the "one" fact in the whole paragraph "Some brands have also began recycling services for their e-cigarette batteries". All the rest is "limited" "may" "unclear" and "unknown", those are opinions. ] 06:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::Per ] I have hidden the section, its a list of things from one source, and almost all opinion, if you want to move the fact, enjoy. ] 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::] does not apply. I continue to agree with Bluerasberry: I oppose the deletion of material published by expert reviewers in a field who are presenting the best available information. ] (]) 05:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Yes, ] still applies in this case even if . ] (]) 21:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::That was inadvertent, I copied it, I must have cut on accident. ] 03:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Was this also ? If it was an edit conflict it would not of happened.
	::::::::Was this also ? You removed part of my comment. ] is irrelevant to this discussion. ] (]) 03:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
	I have brought questions on this to the ]. Here is ] 06:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)</span>

			== Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion ==
	==Copyright issue==
	QuackGuru in the article
	:"Many of the observed negative effects from e-cigarette use concerning the ] and the ] are probably related to nicotine overdose or withdrawal."
	It is an almost exact copy of the journal article.
	:"Many of the noted ‘negative’symptoms involved the neurological and sensory systems,likely due to nicotine overdose or withdrawal."
	This needs to be paraphrased as the one is easily seen in the other. ] 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
	::That is not a copyright issue as it is not a close copy of the original. It is at worst plagiarism, but I think it is paraphrased enough to even avoid that charge, see ], especially when dealing with a single short sentence. Feel free, if you feel it necessary to paraphrase further, though. ] (]) 19:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::I see it as a derivative work as written, that is a copyright issue. I would prefer the person who added it paraphrase, but if not done soon I will do it. ] 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::You without the text being in quotes or in-text attribution. That is a copyright violation on the talk page. The text in the body is in accordance with ]. Any rephrasing must not be original research. I can't think of another way to rewrite it. ] (]) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I added quotation marks to the line above. ] 23:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	::::::You only added the without proper attribution using a . ] (]) 03:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Its in quotation marks. The quotation marks were enough, and since you gave a link, its taken care of. But its still a derivative work on the page, why dont you fix it since you added it? ] 03:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

			· ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
	== Suggest move aerosol-vs-vapor clarification from 'Ultrafine particles' to 'Mist' section ==

			'''1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"? '''
	Most of the first paragraph under 'Ultrafine particles' explains the difference between an aerosol and a vapor, which is a bit out-of-place in a section for discussion of particles. I think it would be better fitting under the 'Mist' section, though I'm unsure exactly where to place it in order to avoid interrupting the flow of the paragraph. ] (]) 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
	:You might want to look at the Electronic cigarette talk page, the page that this page was taken out of, for reasons why mist/vapor/aerosol are a problem right now.] 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
	:139.216.67.84, you are right. I will think of a better placement for the section. ] (]) 20:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

			Per the Misplaced Pages peer review guiding framework, the group's edits substantially improve the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes". The following changes have been noted:
	==Conflicting statements from the same review ==

			# Lead Section:
	There are two claims right other by each other from the same review.
			##The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
	{{Quote\|text=Metal particles in the fluid and aerosol were found from an e-cigarette study, however the study did not evaluate the relevance of the levels identified. A 2014 review found that theses levels was 10-50 times less that that allowed in medicines that are inhaled. }}
			##The revised lead has been significantly expanded, providing a more comprehensive overview of the article's contents.
	Hajek does identify the relevance of the amount of metals, on page 3 saying they are 10-50 times less than allowed in inhaled medicines. I also question the wording of the first claim, on page 3 of Hajek it says the study it was looking at in the review did not evaluate the metals, as it is written it looks like the review did not. ] 16:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
			#Content:
			##New, relevant, and up-to-date information has been added, addressing recent studies and findings.
			##Some specific additions include:
			###Expanded section on cardiovascular effects, citing a 2023 study linking e-cigarette use to increased blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
			###New subsection on demographic impacts, particularly focusing on youth and pregnant women.
			###Expanded section on respiratory health, citing a 2024 study showing a correlation between e-cigarette use and chronic bronchitis symptoms in long-term users.
			##These additions ensure the article remains current and addresses Misplaced Pages's equity gaps by highlighting effects on historically underrepresented populations (i.e., women and children)
			#Tone and Balance:
			##The edits maintain a neutral tone throughout, presenting information with minimal bias.
			##Balanced representation of different viewpoints, including perspectives from both proponents and critics of e-cigarettes. For instance, the potential benefits of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools are discussed alongside health risks.
			#Sources and References:
			##New content is backed by reliable, recent secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals.
			##Citations accurately reflect the information presented and cover a wide spectrum of available literature.
			##Notable new sources include a 2023 article from the Journal of the American Heart Association and a 2024 review in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
			#Organization:
			##The article's structure has been enhanced with clear, concise, and easy-to-read content.
			##New content is well-organized into logical sections such as cardiovascular effects, respiratory health, and demographic impacts.
			##Minor grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structure improved for clarity.
			#Images and Media:
			##While no new images were added, existing visuals are well-captioned and adhere to Misplaced Pages's copyright regulations.
			##Image captions were updated to be more descriptive, enhancing readers' understanding.
			#Overall Impressions:
			##The edits have significantly improved the article's comprehensiveness, balance, and readability.
			##The content is now more complete, with thorough sourcing and a well-structured layout.
			##The strengths of the added content include its relevance, neutrality, and up-to-date research findings.

			'''2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? '''
	==Overly detailed and difficult to read lede==

			The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improving the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes," with several specific accomplishments aligning with their stated objectives.
	The lede is supposed to be the easiest to read section of the page. Its supposed to be a concise. ]. The lede reads like a medical journal article. We need to make it less complex and as easy to read as possible. Right now it is 3 mammoth paragraphs. ] 23:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
	:Per ], the lede should be 3 or four paragraphs. ] (]) 03:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
	::That is not addressing the issue I pointed out. The lede is three times the lede in the E-cigarette, it reads like a journal article. Per ] its supposed to be the easiest section of the article. Its supposed to be a easy to read summery of the page, its not. ] 04:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

			#Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
	:::The Article (minus lede) is 2,800 words. The lede is 550. We should be able to summarise the article in well under a fifth of the words. I may have a go this evening if I get time. ] (]) 14:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
			##Achieved: The lead now includes a more comprehensive overview of electronic cigarettes, including sections on alternatives to smoking and their effects on increasing nicotine products and smoking cessation. These additions provide a thorough background and context for the rest of the article.
			#Add to Other Effects:
			##Partially Achieved: The group successfully added content on the impact of e-cigarettes on the gastrointestinal (GI) system, dermatological manifestations, renal, and hepatic effects. These additions enhance the "Other Effects" section by broadening the scope of health impacts covered. However, more detailed information and specific studies could further strengthen these sections.
			#Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
			##Achieved: The group revised several sections to remove repetitive content and update out-of-date research. The "Adverse Effects" section, including battery-related malfunctions, was updated to reflect more current findings and provide clearer information. These revisions improve the clarity and accuracy of the article.
			#Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
			##Achieved: The sections on adverse effects, reported deaths, direct exposure, and respiratory effects (EVALI) have been updated. The revisions include recent research and detailed findings on these topics, providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview. The gallery section remains unchanged, which might be an area for future improvement.
			#Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
			##Partially Achieved: The "Regulation" section has seen some updates, but it could benefit from more detailed information on specific regulations and their impacts across different regions. The sections on toxicology and public perceptions have been tentatively addressed but could be further expanded with more detailed and current content.
			#Current References and Updated Pictures:
			##Partially Achieved: The group has added more current references throughout the article, citing recent studies and reliable sources. This enhances the credibility and relevance of the information presented. However, there were no significant updates to pictures, which could be an area for further enhancement.

			The group has successfully achieved most of its goals for improving the article. Some areas, such as more detailed regulatory information and expanded sections on toxicology and public perceptions, could be further developed to fully meet all their objectives.
	==Adding of Legal status material to a medical page==

			'''3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?'''
	This edit added material that should be on the Legal status page. This is a medical page and should not be trying to emulate the main Electronic cigarette article. This is bloat. Shall I add a summery of Components, and Culture and society? ] 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

			''A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? ''
	== Was the RFC Recommendations Ignored? "Vapor" is WRONG ==

			The draft submission of the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" largely reflects a neutral point of view, aligning well with Misplaced Pages's standards for neutrality. The revisions include balanced coverage of both the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes. For instance, the article presents data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools alongside evidence of their adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues. This balanced approach ensures that the article does not disproportionately favor one perspective over another.
	There was a lengthy RFC on this and yet someone has altered the text once again to the '''incorrect claim''' that these devices disperse a vapor. The correct term is '''aerosol''' which I had thought was the winning commentary on the last RFC go-around.

			The new content is supported by a range of reliable sources, including recent peer-reviewed studies and authoritative reviews, which helps to maintain neutrality by representing a broad spectrum of expert opinions. Additionally, the article avoids sensational language and unsubstantiated claims, focusing instead on well-supported scientific findings and documented evidence. The sections on regulatory aspects and public perceptions provide a diverse range of viewpoints, reflecting the complexity of the topic without promoting any particular agenda. ] (]) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
	Someone with a dog in the race continues to want to use the technically and scientifically incorrect term, almost certainly because he or she is vested in the industry which sells or markets these devices.

			'''· ] (]) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)'''
	Remember, '''Misplaced Pages is supposed to be encyclopedic''' and the proper utilization of terms is important (or not) to various degrees. If you don't know (or don't care) what a vapor is as opposed to an aerosol, you should be asking other editors before you alter words, or you should comply with the findings of the RFCs which editors open, discuss, and assume to have been resolved.

			'''1.''' Yes, the group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introductory paragraph summarizes the topics in the article and gives a brief description of what electronic cigarettes are. The content added are up-to-date and written from a neutral standpoint. It explores both the advantages and disadvantages of electronic cigarettes throughout the years. Overall, the article provides valuable information and covers multiple perspectives.
	This seemingly-endless alteration cycle is not important in the context of the extant article since it's likely anyone doing research understands the difference, yet anyone who reads the article and is not an editor is going to note the fact that the term being applied -- vapor -- is wrong. That looks bad for Misplaced Pages which the editors insisting on making the mistake should consider stop doing. ] (]) 16:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
	: Please remember ] and try not to attribute shady motives to those who disagree with you. I am not aligned with the industry at all but believe Vapor is the most common term and most easily understood by general readers, we are not writing for scientists, researchers, or health professionals. The RFC is not closed, hopefully will be soon as a request for closing has been made. Until then, please wait as we all are. ] 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
	:] is correct. Electronic cigarettes do not emit vapor according to the sources presented. AlbinoFerret wrote "Until then, please wait as we all are." But SPACKlick wasn't waiting. Since SPACKlick did not wait for the RFC to finish the edits should be reverted. There were a series of edits. Some of the edits . This happened at the too. Sidenote: I tagged a word that I think is . ] (]) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

			'''2.''' The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. I also enjoyed the addition of images and charts throughout the article. The title is short and simple, and the introductory lead is direct and easy to read. The quotations are cited to their original source, and there are links to other Misplaced Pages articles for definitions, making the content more accessible to a wider audience.
	=== Wording ===

			'''3b.''' The claims in the article are verifiable with cited sources freely available, such as information from the CDC, World Health Organization, and articles from PubMed.
	"Aerosol generated from an e-cigarette is commonly but '''inaccurately''' referred to as ‘vapour.’ Vapour refers to the gaseous state of a substance; in contrast, an aerosol is a suspension of fine particles of liquid, solid or both in a gas". It is more accurate to state it is '''inaccurately''' called vapor according to the source.
			] (]) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

			· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	The source says "...regulation of the e-cigarette should be considered on the basis of reported adverse health effects." I could not verify word "potential". The source used the word "reported". I removed the misleading text.

			1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”?
	Spotted original research. Please read "Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes..." The sources says "particles". I removed the misleading text. ] (]) 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
			The information added and the edits submitted do substantially improve the article as the background information is built upon, and the topic at hand is thoroughly addressed. However, while the information added does add value to their page overall, I will say that because the page title is specifically "HEALTH EFFECTS of electronic cigarettes", I would expect to see more dense emphasis on the health effects rather than the debate of what they are used for/smoking cessation/regulations/their malfunctions. I would have expected to see specific headings for the different health effects (instead of just an "other" section), than informational paragraphs describing the pathophysiology behind those health effects/treatment/rates/etc. The information is great, just maybe the organization is off and should have the health effects as the main headings or headings at least. Throughout, a non-bias standpoint was kept!
	:* Point 1) I agree
	:* Point 2) The source says "However, regulation of the e-cigarette '''should''' be considered on the basis of reported adverse health effects." This is the opinion of the authors on how they '''think''' e-cigarette regulation '''should''' work and therefore needs to be attributed due to ]. Furthermore it is not a particularly useful sentence from the source - "on the basis of reported adverse health effects" - reported by whom? Directly by the user, or reported by the medical community? The source is not clear on this and we are left in the dark. The wording currently does not particularly represent the source accurately either. I suggest that this sentence is removed, in the mean time it has been improved and attributed.

			2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
	:* Point 3) It doesn't say just "particles" the source says "Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the '''ultrafine particles''' delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke."] (]) 23:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
			The introduction gives a thorough yet concise overview on both the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The introduction first provides background information on what e-cigarettes are as well as the debates behind them, then later moves into the varying health effects along with their own descriptions. Overall, the introduction gives a great description of what's to be expanded on in the later parts of the wikipedia page.
	::* Point 2) The review does give examples of the "reported" potential effects to health. Therefore, it is useful to include it. ] (]) 05:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
			The "other effects" section I think should be expanded upon (I believe it is not yet complete?) to better reflect the other organs/body systems effected, especially since the article is titled with "health effects". I believe the users are still working on adding more information for the hepatic, renal, and nervous systems.
	:::The problems with the section are clear, and I agree with you Levelledout. This is starting to look like a word search without looking at what the source says. ] 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
			Signs of repetition or outdated information has been eliminated.
	::::You have not responded to my that the review does give specific examples. ] (]) 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
			The public perceptions, regulations, and toxicology subjects are definitely touched upon in depth! This information provides great background detail.
			Overall, goals were achieved, or seem to be in the process of being achieved!

			3c. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Misplaced Pages’s manual of style?
			Yes, the edits are consistent with Misplaced Pages's manual of style. Headings are clear, and information is well-organized throughout. Only critique would be possibly having more clear headings for the different health effects. For example, they touch on dermatological effects, but it did not have its own section/subheading to click through on the left, so it was a bit easy to miss if one were trying to skim through for information on a specific health effect. The "other effects" section I felt could also have their own "clickable" sections on the left and be more of a highlight of the article. ] (]) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

			· Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --] (]) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

			Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024

			Q1: The group’s edits did in fact substantially improve the article. Prior to the edits, a lot of the information was either left as unclear or not well referenced. The group had a clear framework and idea for where and how they wanted to improve the article, and they found reliable sources to do so. Furthermore, using their background knowledge and thinking more like medical professionals, they provided lots of information that read similar to that of a drug. Some examples include pregnancy/lactation impact, adverse events/reactions, toxicology, regulation, and more. Overall, I feel like the content they added did apply to the topic, and it improved the article overall.

			Q2: I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They set out to discuss and provide more information on e-cigarettes from a medical standpoint. Using their experiences and knowledge as a pharmacist, they delved deeper into topics such as adverse reactions or events, they discussed how it impacts multiple organ systems, and they mentioned why individuals would even consider e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation option along with the benefits they pose.

			Q3D: The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion as they not only discuss the effects of e-cigarettes on multiple ethnic groups using data from several reliable articles, but also how they impact other special populations such as those who are pregnant or lactating. They also discuss how the general public views e-cigarettes and the core issue which is the lack of awareness of the harm that these devices pose on the masses. What I really liked was how they also briefly discussed ways to tackle this issue such as advertisements to make the harm of e-cigarettes more known to the general public.

			Overall: Going through the peer review checklist, there is a lot of content in the article and for good reason considering the topic, but I really appreciated how all of you organized the content so nicely, and it all was relevant to the article topic. In terms of bias, this topic is a really hard situation to remain neutral about, but I think you all did a good job weighing out the pros and cons such as in your smoking cessation section of your article. I loved the articles and images you all provided and the references used to support the information that you added to this topic. The articles and citations provided were up to date, they worked, and the sources did support the claims in the article. If there was one thing I might consider adding to the article, it would be a bit more information on what is an e-cigarette, what sort of variations it has out on the market, and its mechanism on how it works and what makes it harmful to carry or breathe in. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Proposed Editing Plan ==

			'''Proposed Editing Plan''' - Add Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes: History, Composition - Add to Other Effects: Impact on GI, dermatological manifestations (integumentary system), renal, hepatic - Cut out repetitive paragraphs (revise Battery Adverse Effects, delete Suction, delete Adolescents, delete Methodological issue) - Add more current references - Change pictures - Update current guidelines/sources (Regulations, EVALI) ] (]) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:14, 30 July 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by S Marshall (talk · contribs) on 26 December 2022.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine poisoning. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into 2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrmisra, JMonka, Dmirandajuarez, LNariyoshi (article contribs). Peer reviewers: FionaMai, Selowe, A.MahmoudiWIKI, Jarynmiguel.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviews from Group Heat Exhaustion

· A.MahmoudiWIKI (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review "Guiding framework"?

Per the Misplaced Pages peer review guiding framework, the group's edits substantially improve the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes". The following changes have been noted:

Lead Section:
1. The previous lead was brief and lacked detail about the major sections of the article.
2. The revised lead has been significantly expanded, providing a more comprehensive overview of the article's contents.
Content:
1. New, relevant, and up-to-date information has been added, addressing recent studies and findings.
2. Some specific additions include:
  1. Expanded section on cardiovascular effects, citing a 2023 study linking e-cigarette use to increased blood pressure and arterial stiffness.
  2. New subsection on demographic impacts, particularly focusing on youth and pregnant women.
  3. Expanded section on respiratory health, citing a 2024 study showing a correlation between e-cigarette use and chronic bronchitis symptoms in long-term users.
3. These additions ensure the article remains current and addresses Misplaced Pages's equity gaps by highlighting effects on historically underrepresented populations (i.e., women and children)
Tone and Balance:
1. The edits maintain a neutral tone throughout, presenting information with minimal bias.
2. Balanced representation of different viewpoints, including perspectives from both proponents and critics of e-cigarettes. For instance, the potential benefits of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools are discussed alongside health risks.
Sources and References:
1. New content is backed by reliable, recent secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals.
2. Citations accurately reflect the information presented and cover a wide spectrum of available literature.
3. Notable new sources include a 2023 article from the Journal of the American Heart Association and a 2024 review in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
Organization:
1. The article's structure has been enhanced with clear, concise, and easy-to-read content.
2. New content is well-organized into logical sections such as cardiovascular effects, respiratory health, and demographic impacts.
3. Minor grammatical errors were corrected and sentence structure improved for clarity.
Images and Media:
1. While no new images were added, existing visuals are well-captioned and adhere to Misplaced Pages's copyright regulations.
2. Image captions were updated to be more descriptive, enhancing readers' understanding.
Overall Impressions:
1. The edits have significantly improved the article's comprehensiveness, balance, and readability.
2. The content is now more complete, with thorough sourcing and a well-structured layout.
3. The strengths of the added content include its relevance, neutrality, and up-to-date research findings.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

The group has largely achieved its overall goals for improving the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes," with several specific accomplishments aligning with their stated objectives.

Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes:
1. Achieved: The lead now includes a more comprehensive overview of electronic cigarettes, including sections on alternatives to smoking and their effects on increasing nicotine products and smoking cessation. These additions provide a thorough background and context for the rest of the article.
Add to Other Effects:
1. Partially Achieved: The group successfully added content on the impact of e-cigarettes on the gastrointestinal (GI) system, dermatological manifestations, renal, and hepatic effects. These additions enhance the "Other Effects" section by broadening the scope of health impacts covered. However, more detailed information and specific studies could further strengthen these sections.
Update Repetitive Paragraphs & Out-of-date Research:
1. Achieved: The group revised several sections to remove repetitive content and update out-of-date research. The "Adverse Effects" section, including battery-related malfunctions, was updated to reflect more current findings and provide clearer information. These revisions improve the clarity and accuracy of the article.
Adverse Effects and Related Sections:
1. Achieved: The sections on adverse effects, reported deaths, direct exposure, and respiratory effects (EVALI) have been updated. The revisions include recent research and detailed findings on these topics, providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date overview. The gallery section remains unchanged, which might be an area for future improvement.
Regulation, Toxicology, Public Perceptions:
1. Partially Achieved: The "Regulation" section has seen some updates, but it could benefit from more detailed information on specific regulations and their impacts across different regions. The sections on toxicology and public perceptions have been tentatively addressed but could be further expanded with more detailed and current content.
Current References and Updated Pictures:
1. Partially Achieved: The group has added more current references throughout the article, citing recent studies and reliable sources. This enhances the credibility and relevance of the information presented. However, there were no significant updates to pictures, which could be an area for further enhancement.

The group has successfully achieved most of its goals for improving the article. Some areas, such as more detailed regulatory information and expanded sections on toxicology and public perceptions, could be further developed to fully meet all their objectives.

3. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines?

A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft submission of the Misplaced Pages article "Health effects of electronic cigarettes" largely reflects a neutral point of view, aligning well with Misplaced Pages's standards for neutrality. The revisions include balanced coverage of both the potential benefits and risks associated with e-cigarettes. For instance, the article presents data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation tools alongside evidence of their adverse health effects, such as cardiovascular and respiratory issues. This balanced approach ensures that the article does not disproportionately favor one perspective over another.

The new content is supported by a range of reliable sources, including recent peer-reviewed studies and authoritative reviews, which helps to maintain neutrality by representing a broad spectrum of expert opinions. Additionally, the article avoids sensational language and unsubstantiated claims, focusing instead on well-supported scientific findings and documented evidence. The sections on regulatory aspects and public perceptions provide a diverse range of viewpoints, reflecting the complexity of the topic without promoting any particular agenda. A.MahmoudiWIKI (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

· FionaMai (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the group’s edits substantially improve the article. The introductory paragraph summarizes the topics in the article and gives a brief description of what electronic cigarettes are. The content added are up-to-date and written from a neutral standpoint. It explores both the advantages and disadvantages of electronic cigarettes throughout the years. Overall, the article provides valuable information and covers multiple perspectives.

2. The group achieved its overall goals for improvement. I also enjoyed the addition of images and charts throughout the article. The title is short and simple, and the introductory lead is direct and easy to read. The quotations are cited to their original source, and there are links to other Misplaced Pages articles for definitions, making the content more accessible to a wider audience.

3b. The claims in the article are verifiable with cited sources freely available, such as information from the CDC, World Health Organization, and articles from PubMed. FionaMai (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

· Jaryn copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3c Jarynmiguel (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --Jarynmiguel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Misplaced Pages peer review “Guiding framework”? The information added and the edits submitted do substantially improve the article as the background information is built upon, and the topic at hand is thoroughly addressed. However, while the information added does add value to their page overall, I will say that because the page title is specifically "HEALTH EFFECTS of electronic cigarettes", I would expect to see more dense emphasis on the health effects rather than the debate of what they are used for/smoking cessation/regulations/their malfunctions. I would have expected to see specific headings for the different health effects (instead of just an "other" section), than informational paragraphs describing the pathophysiology behind those health effects/treatment/rates/etc. The information is great, just maybe the organization is off and should have the health effects as the main headings or headings at least. Throughout, a non-bias standpoint was kept!

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The introduction gives a thorough yet concise overview on both the pros and cons of e-cigarettes. The introduction first provides background information on what e-cigarettes are as well as the debates behind them, then later moves into the varying health effects along with their own descriptions. Overall, the introduction gives a great description of what's to be expanded on in the later parts of the wikipedia page. The "other effects" section I think should be expanded upon (I believe it is not yet complete?) to better reflect the other organs/body systems effected, especially since the article is titled with "health effects". I believe the users are still working on adding more information for the hepatic, renal, and nervous systems. Signs of repetition or outdated information has been eliminated. The public perceptions, regulations, and toxicology subjects are definitely touched upon in depth! This information provides great background detail. Overall, goals were achieved, or seem to be in the process of being achieved!

3c. Does the article meet Misplaced Pages guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Misplaced Pages’s manual of style? Yes, the edits are consistent with Misplaced Pages's manual of style. Headings are clear, and information is well-organized throughout. Only critique would be possibly having more clear headings for the different health effects. For example, they touch on dermatological effects, but it did not have its own section/subheading to click through on the left, so it was a bit easy to miss if one were trying to skim through for information on a specific health effect. The "other effects" section I felt could also have their own "clickable" sections on the left and be more of a highlight of the article. Jarynmiguel (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC) --Jarynmiguel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

· Sebastian copies and answers Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3d. --Selowe (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sebastian Lowe's Peer Review Questions: 1, 2, and 3D 7/29/2024

Q1: The group’s edits did in fact substantially improve the article. Prior to the edits, a lot of the information was either left as unclear or not well referenced. The group had a clear framework and idea for where and how they wanted to improve the article, and they found reliable sources to do so. Furthermore, using their background knowledge and thinking more like medical professionals, they provided lots of information that read similar to that of a drug. Some examples include pregnancy/lactation impact, adverse events/reactions, toxicology, regulation, and more. Overall, I feel like the content they added did apply to the topic, and it improved the article overall.

Q2: I believe that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. They set out to discuss and provide more information on e-cigarettes from a medical standpoint. Using their experiences and knowledge as a pharmacist, they delved deeper into topics such as adverse reactions or events, they discussed how it impacts multiple organ systems, and they mentioned why individuals would even consider e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation option along with the benefits they pose.

Q3D: The edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion as they not only discuss the effects of e-cigarettes on multiple ethnic groups using data from several reliable articles, but also how they impact other special populations such as those who are pregnant or lactating. They also discuss how the general public views e-cigarettes and the core issue which is the lack of awareness of the harm that these devices pose on the masses. What I really liked was how they also briefly discussed ways to tackle this issue such as advertisements to make the harm of e-cigarettes more known to the general public.

Overall: Going through the peer review checklist, there is a lot of content in the article and for good reason considering the topic, but I really appreciated how all of you organized the content so nicely, and it all was relevant to the article topic. In terms of bias, this topic is a really hard situation to remain neutral about, but I think you all did a good job weighing out the pros and cons such as in your smoking cessation section of your article. I loved the articles and images you all provided and the references used to support the information that you added to this topic. The articles and citations provided were up to date, they worked, and the sources did support the claims in the article. If there was one thing I might consider adding to the article, it would be a bit more information on what is an e-cigarette, what sort of variations it has out on the market, and its mechanism on how it works and what makes it harmful to carry or breathe in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Editing Plan

Proposed Editing Plan - Add Introduction of Electronic Cigarettes: History, Composition - Add to Other Effects: Impact on GI, dermatological manifestations (integumentary system), renal, hepatic - Cut out repetitive paragraphs (revise Battery Adverse Effects, delete Suction, delete Adolescents, delete Methodological issue) - Add more current references - Change pictures - Update current guidelines/sources (Regulations, EVALI) Rrmisra (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: