Talk:Exercise and body weight

Robert Parsons 12:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Katie Gallagher 17:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice selection of papers. Don't forget to detail a bit more papers 1 & 2 and keep the references format consistent.Celine Caquineau 09:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How's the plan going? I advise you to update your work regularly. Celine Caquineau 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on your article so far

Good, well written sections with interesting information and well referenced. However, the Introduction is missing. Some diagrams would also be welcome to illustrate the text.

It is very difficult to know how much interaction happened between you as the Talk page is empty. Remember this is meant to be a team work, you need to give each other inputs and feedback, this is one of the main objectives of this tutorial. You also need to look at what other groups have done, and provide links to these in your own articles if appropriate.

Nancy Sabatier 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Really good guys! easy to read, well laid out, and not too complex! Rachael Kirkbride 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

hi guys, i think it's a good idea to use this page to communicate- could we meet a 3pm instead?- son't think i will be back by 2, thanks- i have ideas for intro and conclu. so we can put that together Katie Gallagher 10:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean at 3 on monday? 'Emily Moore 14:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)'

I agree witht the comments above. Well done! It's a well written and well structured article. It reads really well and the 'level' of science is just right, you've understood it's an encyclopaedia article not an essay. I think the set of studies you described are really interesting. Every studies and facts are well referenced but use the citizendium references format throughout the article like you have done it in part 1.1. Im glad to see that you'll be meeting soon to add an intro and conclusion, looking forward to read your 'final' article. Celine Caquineau 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

3 oclock's fine with me. library again?

sounds good! see you tomorrow at three in front of the library.

Really enjoyed reading this article. The structure was good, and the information presented was relevant, interesting and easy to read. I thought the studies used were good and I particularly liked the last section on contradictory evidence linking excercise and weight loss. When you start talking about insulin, maybe you could create a link to the gut-brain signalling page to tie in your article with others? Amelia Sheldon 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple and effective, this is very well written. Neil R. J. Watson 15:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The level you've pitched this is about right but from reading 'Contradictory evidence for the link between exercise and a reduction in body weight', you have to watch not to over-infer the findings from the studies. This aside, it was interesting to read. Mark Cairns 16:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mark, you’re jumping to conclusions in the contradictory evidence part. E.g what you said about the Church et al study! Don’t agree with what you have written at all! Otherwise its going well. Shane McSweeney 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

i think this article is very well structured and makes an extremely interesting read. One suggestion is that under the subheading 'maintenance of long-term weight loss', you could include the graph shown to us in one of our lectures which illustrates your point very well - its in the leptin and obesity lecture, about half way through the slides there is a bar graph under the title Rowan Human Nutrition Unit weight loss studies.. i just think it could be quite useful for you! Rachael White 13:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Great article, nice and concise.maybe add some pictures or a graph as suggested above. Juliet Carmichael 16:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a really good article, easy to read and clear to follow. I agree that an image/graph would break the text up a bit and add to the overall quality of the article. Katie Rowland 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

hi guys!- i've added in our names, the topic outline and the introduction and redone my references in order from the introduction- so now rob can continue as of foot note 6 and then emily can continue after that. if you need to reference any of my papers that are already in the proper formatting you need to do - the name i've given each reference is the number in letter of it's position in the reference list- so for example if you want to site redinger it's ref name=one/ catenacci is ref name=two etc. if you have a problem kust let me know- i'm having a search for images- have you found any that are good and helpful? see you soonKatie Gallagher 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

really good article - only suggestion could be a link from the 'CSA accelerometer based activity monitor' to a website or footnote explaining what this is?Hannah Frost 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey. kept the conclusion quite short cos i thought we might be running out of room. if you guys feel i've missed anything important out give a shout Robert Parsons 11:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is clear and concise and as a result is easy to read and informative. Is there anyway you could add some images to break up the big block of text? Otherwise very good.

hi guys- i've asked Celine about uploading images- we can't use any graphs or figures from our papers- as we need author authorization, have you found/ made any images which would be useful?!- and how are the references going? Rob- the conclusions really good. Katie Gallagher 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

we should also try and add in links to other articles that were suggested?! Katie Gallagher 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Rob i can't do my references until you've done yours...

i've done mine- for intro, and my bit- so you just go from there- is that what you mean? Katie Gallagher 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i think it's done now, took me a while to work out how the referencing bit worked :s Robert Parsons 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

you don't need to wait to put your references in, the system will sort them out in order automatically! Celine Caquineau 10:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done guys, I think you article is good, reads well and clear. Making 'links' with other articles or websites is a good suggestion. Celine Caquineau 10:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do my references! Might need to be pointed in the right direction before i can do them... 'Emily Moore 10:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)'

I don't know what's happened!!!!!!!!!! Might need to meet up to sort it out. I went onto the intro edit page, came out and it had all gone pear shaped. Oh dear... 'Emily Moore 11:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)'

A nice concise article which was both easy to read and to understand. Good job =D --Bruce Traven McLintock 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

Well done all three of you, you've all contributed useful and relevant material, and have constructed an interesting article, that is solidly based on well chosen studies. You've only had a short time to work on this, and so of course it's easy to find gaps and weaknesses, but you should feel pleased with what you've achieved. One section is hard to follow, and I've marked that in the article. Writing an encyclopedia article, as you have found is hard - you really have to understand what you're saying before you try to say it, it just isn't enough to try to precis what's been written before. If it's not clear to you it won't be clear to your readers. It's clear that these are interesting and relevant studies - probably a good choice to explain here - but they need to be explained in quite simple terms.

Generally, it's always very easy to forget that you're writing not for yourself but for someone else. It's a good discipline to read out aloud what you've written - it really helps find things that don't flow. If you look at the edits I've made you'll find that most are just minor changes to help the flow, and by doing so (I hope) make the points clearer.Gareth Leng 12:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)