This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Medicine Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

wrote this pretty fast. would love to hear experienced editors opinions on how its put together, grammar, etc. Chantoke 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chantoke, thanks for starting this article. I'm not sure if I qualify as an "experienced editor", but here are my proposals nonetheless. :) I think that the article should be shortened, perhaps condensing sections 1-6 into just 3-4 paragraphs: I think that the level of detail given is a little intimidating and it seems like the intent (AFAICT) is to summarize the book.

I wonder if a good structure would be to center the discussion around the successful and unsuccessful (i.e., cognitive errors such as onfirmation bias) thought strategies that were identified in the book. A clear summary of them would be very valuable even to those who've read the book, as it would be a reminder of

I took the liberty of expanding the section now called "Suggestions for patients", because even though this is a very small part of the book by page count, IMO its suggestions are very important because they are easy things a layperson can do to improve their care. --R27182818 04:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

took out the praise in the 'public response section', which i believe was the 'soap box' element of the summary that you were critcizing. if there is anything else bothering you about this summary, please be more specific in your criticism. Chantoke 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on How Doctors Think. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070422234759/http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com:80/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689664 to http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689664

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]