Talk:Endrin

message: health effects are missing amongst gobble-digook of expert language, that doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. Update, new section ED needed.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endocrine disruptor (ED) 

message: As your teacher can explain, readers and scholars are reassured by citations to peer-reviewed books and scholarly articles.  Since the year 2000, twenty reviews mentioning Endrin have been published in English, here are some of them:
*Harrad, S., Abdallah, M. A.-E., The environmental behaviour of persistent organic pollutants, 2014, 417.
* Chopra, A. K., Sharma, M. K., Chamoli, S., "Bioaccumulation of organochlorine pesticides in aquatic system-an overview", Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 173, 905. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1433-4
*Matsumoto, E., Kawanaka, Y., Yun, S.-J., Oyaizu, H., "Bioremediation of the organochlorine pesticides, dieldrin and endrin, and their occurrence in the environment", Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 205. doi:10.1007/s00253-009-2094-5
*Caragea, N., Roibu, C., "Studies regarding milk contaminants influence on the human health", J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2008, 9, 105.
*Patange, S. B., Sharangdher, S. T., Sharangdher, M. T., "An appraisal of environmental hazards and seafood safety", Ecol., Environ. Conserv. 2007, 13, 411.
*Zitko, V., Chlorinated pesticides: aldrin, DDT, endrin, dieldrin, mirex, 2003, 47. 
--Smokefoot (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. This will be very helpful --DeusetScientia (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont agree that these are "better" . For readers most of those are inaccessible, because subscription required. It's not about us, but the reader!  I highly recommend open access journals, in this case Environmental Health Perspectives. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Environmental Health Perspectives is fine, but several other open access journals have a very weak review process. --Leyo 07:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  Re "most of those are inaccessible, because subscription required".  Virtually the only good citations are subscription-based, peer-reviewed journals.  That fact is a central, if disconcerting, truth of scientific information. One either uses that content, or one is in the hinterlands.  Peer reviewed journals and reviews are the backbone of the scientific establishment.  Otherwise one is dealing with unrefereed cruft, bloggosphere, and government documentation.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Better sources

message: In an effort to usefully expand this article, we are considering the following for changes. 
* The "Production and Uses" section may be more effective if it were instead split into separate "Production" and "Uses" sections
* If enough pertinent information can be found, a section outlining endrin's "History" may be useful
* The safety section is fairly vague and may require some detailed editing to better express what is being said in a more informative way. Perhaps, the "Safety" section could instead be split into "Health Effects" and "Environmental Issues" sections. As suggested by Wuerzele a while back, this article could use either an endocrine disruptor section or a reference to endrin as an endocrine disruptor in one of these two new sections
* Finally, the chemical information in the infobox should be checked and expanded as fully as possible
As a general rule, the information provided on this page needs to be double-checked for accuracy, especially with some of these older citations. I realize that much of the research was done a while ago, but the information should be checked regardless. 
--DeusetScientia (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: who is "we are...", please ? would be nice if you said that instead of relying on templates thrown on the talk page.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. By that I meant Jukaredaa and Tracklete14. We have been tasked with expanding Endrin as part of a course at Boston College. We three are still getting used to the way things work on this side of Wikipedia. If you have any tips or suggestions, please don't hesitate to jump in. We can always use the help. The above note on open access journals is also very helpful, so thank you! --DeusetScientia (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

text: virtually all good scientific info is by subscription. Jeesh. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I am going to begin some expansion on the ChemBox for this article. If there is any issue with my edits, please feel free to change them and/or let me know --DeusetScientia (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the information regarding the solubility of endrin in other substances such as alcohol, benzene, and acetone, as found in the citation for the solubility in water. However, this reference only gives solubilities for those solvents in percents (74, 37, and 28% respectively). Should these even be included? I didn't want to publish them as I have seen very few chemical pages that include solubility as percents --DeusetScientia (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I have also added a section to "Health" regarding the 1984 endrin poisoning outbreak in Pakistan. I felt it warranted it's own subsection. If not, it can be condensed into the neurological effects subsection. Whatever is cleaner. --DeusetScientia (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed you asked for clarification here in the 1984 section regarding the lack of records of what the truck drivers said/did. I couldn't find who in the article(s) was specifically investigating these incidents. I don't know if we know/can know. If you can spot it, let me know. Thanks for the ping/note --DeusetScientia (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks now I understand what the sentence meant. delete it. I understand you want to be very accurate, but this detail is not needed to convey the message you want to convey: "how endrin entered the food supply could not be proven, but the most likely cause was blah blah..." it's tempting to interpret more than a source offers, i understand that fully. we should not judge a study and let our judgement enter into the encyclopedia. selecting a source alone is a judgement already (commission versus ommission). that no paper trail could be found is completely unsurprising to me, and maybe to you too, if you imagine a bit. I traveled in Africa in the mid 80's and papers/tickets etc did not exist on a local level. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Expansion

message: thanks for quickly responding to my tags. 
The reason why I dint thank you for this edit is, because I think you didnt understand my criticism - obviously I didnt communicate it well enough with a mere tag !
merely entering the body does not translate into ill effects directly. so you would have to qualify the exposure ( acute chronic, prenatal etc) in the sentence. the toxic effects you list can stem from a high or chronic exposure as  in the dose makes- the- poison toxicology. but not as in the case of dev. toxicants, by hitting a vulnerable organism at the "worst moment", in a developmental window for example. ok? --Wuerzele (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am terribly sorry for misunderstanding your comment.  I will look back at it as soon as possible to fix it.  Thank you for your corrective criticism, we really appreciate it as we are developing this page especially being the first time I have done something like this so all of your comments are very helpful! It will definitely be easier to elaborate more on that as we get into our health effects section and discover more information related to this. Tracklete14 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  you're very welcome and thanks for doing this job. feel free to ask any time. One thing : please ping me, so I know you wrote me. the shortest way I know is by addressing the user as I am doing in my messages:. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  feedback 

message: ,, , as I edited this sentence by replacing one word (a "loaded term") I thought let me bring this whole sentence up to you:
Endrin, including other pesticides, enter the environment through direct application or as they are washed off from crops during rainfall. 
My next step would be to change all the nouns that pull the sentence down like lead weights/typical for bad, and bureaucratic texts. nouns make everything more impressive, right?
Endrin enters the environment when applied to crops or when rain washes them off.
benefit 1: shorter, benefit 2: easy to read, to understand and maybe retain! benefit 3: less headache. agreed?
so use verbs instead of nouns wherever you can. simplify simplify simplify -without dropping meaning or explanations of course - just by structure. 
lastly, double check, read every section of teh sentence critically, using frontal lobe: does-it-make-sense? ( if not to you , then most likely not to readers) 
Endrin enters the environment when ------applied to crops or--------- when rain washes them off.
Is that really all? do I need to consider something else, other sources?
no, the sentence doesnt cover all possibilities how endrin can enter the environment. it can also enter by accidents/spills either at production or mixing or disposal sites. agreed? How much that is going to be I dont know, but its probably in teh ATSDR tox profile. if you dont know it, you cant write it, would be WP:OR. So, until you check that at this point I'd recommend to insert one little word to remind yourself that the above is not the whole story: either add "can" next to enter or add "regularly", because you know that is absolutely correct. i'd not use "primarily" because it would be a guess, even though a good guess.
Endrin "regularly" enters the environment, when applied to crops or when rain washes them off.  --or--
Endrin "can" enter the environment, when applied to crops or when rain washes them off.
I prefer the former, because 'can' could be understood as hedging, as in leaving open teh possibility that endrin might not always enter the environment by normal application in fields, because of course it does. i wouldnt use can unless you add an "or" afterwards as in "or when produced, mixed or disposed off", so teh 'can' doesnt reflex on the application/rainfall part.
ping me for any question. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I got your point. Thanks for being concerned about our page , we really appreciate your help and input.--Jukaredaa (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks , this makes a lot of sense. We certainly want clarity, and don't want to cause any more confusion! We will take this into account as we move forward, and will check our wording throughout as we edit. We will certainly ping you as necessary. --DeusetScientia (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

text: , I realize that you re-organized the health section and the location of things to make it more easy to follow. I didn't realize this until after I moved information regarding acute exposure and affects on the nervous system to the initial point made regarding the CNS and endrin as a neurotoxin. I can move it back if you think it works better how you originally had it. I just figured putting the info on the NS together flowed nicer than if we chop it up with other info in between. Not a big deal, but I figured I'd get your input. --DeusetScientia (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  no sweat. it's cool as is. section will need a lot more info, so condensing is key. thanks for your work.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  that is certainly on our radar. We have been considering our options on this section, seeing as the information that was there originally was riddled with bad references and otherwise useless material. Expansion is next, insofar as we are actually able to expand it. We've noticed the difficulty with expanding this article is found in the fact that endrin, for all intents and purposes, is not in use and no one is really studying it. We will certainly do our utmost. Your guidance has been well received, and much more helpful than some that we've received. Thanks again. --DeusetScientia (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  anatomy of 1 sentence to teach learners about language and style 

message: Overall: This was a very good article; it was strong and informative. The large majority of the information was relevant, properly organized, properly cited, and interesting. The headings and subheadings made the article easy to understand. There was a good amount of links to other Wikipedia articles, which will be extremely helpful for other readers. Also, the article was well formatted and I did not find many grammatical/spelling errors. In general, I could not detect bias throughout the article.
Section Above Table of Contents: I believe this should be shortened/moved to other places within the article. At this point, I think the section above the Table of Contents should be just a brief introduction of Endrin, with more substantial information moved below. The third paragraph, talking about endrin's classification, could possibly be moved to the "Regulation" section. Possibly include a "Structure and Basic Information" type of section to fit the rest of the information.
History: The History section is overall very good and informative. However, I would change the sentence "Shell International was licensed in the United States and in the Netherlands to produce it." as I believe it is unclear if whether if just the Netherlands, or both the Netherlands and the United States produced it.
Production: This was relevant and to the point. Additionally, the links that lead to other Wikipedia articles within this section will help readers understand this difficult portion of the article. I do not think anything needs to be changed/edited in this section.
Use: I do not think that the last paragraph (which talks about the study performed in 1981 to 1983) belongs in this section. Possibly leave the mention of it being used as rodenticide, but the rest of it should be moved to possibly the History or Regulation section.
Health Effects: I do not think the paragraph about metabolism belongs here, and may best be moved to a "Basic Information" type of section. Additionally, I believe the section about "1984 poisoning outbreak in Pakistan" should be placed in the History section. I also think the information regarding the 1984 Pakistan outbreak can be condensed.
Environmental Behavior: Although I find the information regarding the removal from the environment very interesting, I believe it could be edited slightly to be more easily understood by someone who is not well-versed in scientific language. Once again, good job on including links to other Wikipedia articles!
Regulation: The "Regulation" section is very well done, good job obtaining information about a country other than the United States. The information was stated in a very neutral manner and did not appear to show any bias.
  Bridget1957 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review by Bridget1957 For EDD (Hake)