| Revision as of 08:35, 2 June 2004 editMr-Natural-Health (talk | contribs)4,184 edits →Compliance Audit of 6/01/04: Added introduction and clarified the results of the audit.← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:55, 3 June 2004 edit undoTemplate namespace initialisation script (talk | contribs)5 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{CamPassed}}{{CamNotice}} | ||
| It was actually me, Lumos3, who created this page but somehow I became logged off during the session and it didnt get recorded. | It was actually me, Lumos3, who created this page but somehow I became logged off during the session and it didnt get recorded. | ||
Revision as of 19:55, 3 June 2004
Template:CamPassedTemplate:CamNotice It was actually me, Lumos3, who created this page but somehow I became logged off during the session and it didnt get recorded.
Preliminary review of Orthomolecular medicine
My preliminary review of Orthomolecular medicine is totally unfavorable.
The primary problem seems to be that this article is nothing but a stub article hiding behind a lot of verbiage. Major portions of the Orthomolecular medicine viewpoint are simply not documented in this article. I got absolutely nothing out of this article other than a bunch of commonly held generalities..
The article states: The substances may be administered by diet, dietary supplementation or intravenously, for example. What is that supposed to mean? I have no idea. As far as I know, diet has absolutely nothing to do with Orthomolecular medicine. Intravenous treatments would seem to require professionalized care, while dietary supplementation says self-care.
This article totally fails SQG#3. The proponent's viewpoint is largely missing. No wonder that opponents have yet to attack this article. There is nothing to prove or attack as it is presently written. -- John Gohde 23:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Compliance Audit of 6/01/04
This article was recently subjected to a compliance audit by the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. We have a master list of 20 Key Questions that are designed to measure the compliance of CAM articles to our Standards of Quality Guidelines.
Overall, this article created a negative impression. The primary problem seems to be that this article is nothing but a stub article hiding behind a lot of verbiage. Major portions of the Orthomolecular medicine viewpoint are simply not documented in this article. I got absolutely nothing out of this article other than a bunch of commonly held generalities.
Orthomolecular medicine was the first article to be audited. It was also the first to pass our audit. The answers to 4 questions indicated non-compliance to our standards of quality quidelines. This resulted in a passing grade of 80%.
- No footnote to support the health claim that RDA is inadequate.
- No explanation of therapeutic effects.
- No listing of effective medical conditions treated.
- Did not recommend complementary treatment.
The Physical mode of action was determined to come from proper nutrition. -- John Gohde 05:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)