User talk:Aherrera09/sandbox

Hello, great work on your wiki article so far. After looking through it alongside the rubric, here are a few notes: your abstract looks good, however, what do you think of removing that classification title and combining those two paragraphs together? An abstract is typically one small paragraph and splitting it up the way it is doesn't currently look like an abstract, though the information you have there definitely belongs in one. Your abstract covers the main idea, hallmark features, and subdivisions, which is great. Your signs and symptoms section looks great as well. Under pathophysiology, I would if possible explain how those BCKAD's cause the urine to smell sweet. Lastly, your diagnosis section looks a little short, if possible, add what kind of tests are done to detect those plasma amino acids/sotolon odor. I think that'll extend the section a bit. I think when you're done editing you'll have a great wiki article on your hand! Great job!--Ncinquino (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Annette,

Good job on your topic, I found it very interesting since I haven't heard of it before and the name alone grabbed my attention. You have a decent amount of information on your wiki article which is great considering it is a rare disease which is great! Just a couple of points I wanted to add was if you remove the classification section and make your diagnosis section a little longer. I think the information you added in the classification section can be used in the abstract. The diagnosis was good but I just thought it was a bit too short and could use some expanding. These are just a few tips but overall your wiki article looks great. Good job!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsanti21 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Annette,

Good job on your topic, I found it very interesting since I haven't heard of it before and the name alone grabbed my attention. You have a decent amount of information on your wiki article which is great considering it is a rare disease which is great! Just a couple of points I wanted to add was if you remove the classification section and make your diagnosis section a little longer. I think the information you added in the classification section can be used in the abstract. The diagnosis was good but I just thought it was a bit too short and could use some expanding. These are just a few tips but overall your wiki article looks great. Good job!! Jsanti21 (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)---

• If you are making classification its own section at the top, it needs a header, not a subheader.
• I like all the detail you have added in signs and symptoms about specific subtypes. However, the text is a little close to the original source. Please make sure that you are really paraphrasing, and not just copying with a few wording changes. Failure to do this will impact both your grade and the acceptance of this article on wikipedia.
• The pathophysiology section would relaly benefit from some elaboration. How do issues with this enzyme lead to the symptoms?
• You are missing several sections, including the recent research section.

Sweiner02 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)