Talk:Flavored tobacco

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flavored tobacco article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Medicine Low‑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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slaikijrung, WeiqingC, Amnaelsayed, KuanHsuanWu. Peer reviewers: LiangEm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CP133 2019 Peer Edits

Hello Group 10! 1) I believe that Group 10 made substantial efforts to improve the article. It seems there was some difficulty in staying within the specific topic of “flavored” tobacco, especially since there is so much overlap between flavoring and the legalization of certain tobacco products. But overall, I think Group 10 did a great job at expanding important contemporary topics such as the use by youth, and made multiple changes in the wording of some sentences that improved the ease of reading. 2) From the edits that I see, I believe that the cited secondary sources were good choices. The group made multiple references to CDC and FDA, which are not only publicly available but are also organizations that have gathered many data to support its decisions. Jinaminjunglee (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q1) I believe Group 10 did well in improving the article and followed the framework. The article has a lot of different products that were talked about and I think Group 10 added useful information that expanded the topics they wanted to focus on (i.e. Prop C, dangers of hookah). I think they met most of their goals! Q2) The article does reflect a neutral point of view. I like how both perspectives of the proponents and opponents of tobacco were mentioned and all of the statements were objectively written. Great job! LiangEm (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Group 10! 1) Group 10’s efforts have improved the flavored tobacco article, and it was exciting to see the additions they made to ensure this important topic’s article. I appreciated the range of edits they made from improving the wording of certain sections to adding a paragraph on Prop C to the regulation section. I think further expansion of the added content, including an update regarding Prop C, now that the election is finished, are potential future beneficial contributions. 2) In my investigation, I did not see any evidence of plagiarism in the contributions made by group 10. Great job! Jtbrooks333 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q1) Group 10 contributed thorough improvements to the article! I appreciate the added information to expand on various topics, especially regulation and societal use. My only recommendation is to add specific flavor examples for heat-not-burn products to maintain consistency, since each of the other sections included hard examples. Q2) I believe the team members did a great job formatting edits consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. I have no recommendations at this time in regard to the composition of newly added materials. Tiffpham (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CP133 2019 Group 10 proposed edits

Adding information about Prop C on the last paragraph of RegulationsKuanHsuanWu (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding picture of different products (Hookah, e-cigarettes, heat-not burn products, and cigar) for easier comparisonKuanHsuanWu (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more health-related consequences of the flavored tobacco Slaikijrung (talk) 04:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information about the dangers of hookah and how its not any safer than other products Amnaelsayed (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Add more information about why cigars are more accessible to lower income people Amnaelsayed (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more to the heat not burn products Amnaelsayed (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more to Electronic cigarettes WeiqingC (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the flow of each sentence for a better definition of each flavored tobacco product Slaikijrung (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranging the structure of topics from the most commonly used flavored tobacco products to the least commonly used Slaikijrung (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editing a new regulaion KuanHsuanWu (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]