Talk:National Occupational Research Agenda

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UCIHGrad18.

Untitled

Most of this information was last updated in 2008. Since then, several changes have occurred such as the addition of cross-sectors (health and safety issues within each sector. It may also be helpful to link to this page from each sector/cross-sector Wiki page. UCIHGrad18 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a shared real-time notepad. Type here to collaborate with the other people you're talking to in this videochat. Please be patient if no one is here yet, people sometimes show up at the last minute. Also, try to use headphones to avoid echoing during the chat. If you don't have headphones, you might be able to mute your computer mic when you're not talking.  Hello! Elizabeth from D.C. Hi there! Let's wait for a few more people.  Faciliator: There are two ppl in this session currently UCHIGrad18 and Elizabeth. You guys can get started:)  Do you have an article to review? UCHIGrad18 I can show some of the edits I've made in one article. You? No, not yet.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Occupational_Research_Agenda  Btw, I am scrolling through the bottom right screen now. Introduction: My name is Mike, I am a student in an occupational epidemiology class at the University of Cincinnati  I'm in a Women & Political Leadership class at American University.  Are you at the link I provided? (Also, I am on page 3/7 below)   Yes, I think the article could use NORA's logo. ok- I'm not sure if NORA itself has a logo, but NIOSH does and would be appropriate  Is there a criteria you want to focus on the article? I mainly edited the NORA Research Organization Portion. The previous version did not have cross-sectors listed. Also added NORA results section. If there's anything that jumps out as a problem, let me know.  For the NORA results section, specific info can be included concerning the actual results. Same for the symposiums--more info/details.  Curious why Rosenstock resigned.  I would change the order to have NORA's research orgs, symposiums, NORA in practice, then results.  My takeaway when I saw it last week was that it was mainly organized in a chronological order. I think "NORA in practice" could maybe be a subheading instead of a separate section, still part of the history.   Okay, and the third reference doesn't open to the article. Just the homepage. OK, I didn't check any of the links already present in the article when I started editing. Should do that since much of it is old.  Last link doesn't work. The tenth one too.  Overall, I think the article could just have more info added and things explained more. What specifically do you think should be added/explained? For example, the Results I referenced where a reader can go for the report (~100 pages each) I probably won't be able to summarize that very easily though.  Yea, that' fine. You could include pertinent yet interesting facts because the article just seems a bit scant in sections aside from the different sectors. Do you think that each sector (industry) deserves its own section with results? or would that be overkill?  No, that'd be too much but you can annotate a source to that if one is available. I would also explain why the priorities included are priorities. You can include pics of the symposiums. Where would I find those? NIOSH's website? I don't think they have pictures of the symposia, it is hard even finding documentation about the meetings. They seem to reorganize their website and lots of stuff gets removed   Okay, anything else you want to review? Not really- did you have anything?  No, we can copy and paste this into the article's talk page then. ok

ElizabethOgunsuyi (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Elizabeth

@ElizabethOgunsuyi: Because there is no way to verify the authenticity of that chat, we can accept it neither as a reliable source nor as evidence of donation of copyrighted material. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)