User talk:Brickelephant/sandbox

Rebecca, this is a great start and I like how fluid the article is. It makes reading it very easy. Just a few notes for each section... the Introduction needs a bit more on epidemiology, definition, different forms of the condition, and proper annunciation. There is a way to edit and add more to the disease information box. Just click the "edit on Wikipedia" link in the bottom right-hand corner and you should be able to add sections like "symptoms", "demographics", "definition"-- pretty much any small excerpt you want to pull from the article to draw the reader in. I know you have the "contents" box, but this will provide the reader with a very brief summary of the selected sections.Cause and Prevention: maybe add some preventative measures if there are any? Even if it reduces only a few symptoms if there is no prominent cure. I would add prevention to the title as well. Images could serve a great purpose here.Symptoms: I would definitely elaborate on the symptoms more--maybe even include a table in this section to make it a bit more aesthetically pleasing, and a manageable read. Mechanism: looks great, just be sure to include hyperlinks so people can define words like malnutrition, MBD, and vitamin B-deficiency. Hyperlinks go for the previous sections as well. It's best to define symptoms by adding those hyperlinks.Treatment: treatment looks great, maybe add some known procedures and medications a bit more? Again, add those hyperlinks so you don't have to waste space and or time.Recent research: I would provide 2 - 3 articles pertaining to recent research.Style: definitely try and make this a bit more pleasing to the eye. Consider tables, images, and other media to keep the reader engrossed in the article, without flooding it with too much. I'm not entirely sure what the "Eponym" section is supposed to represent? Maybe you can get rid of that section and add the information elsewhere? It seems like it would be suitable for the "Introduction", as it pertains to the history of the condition. Also be sure to use synonyms for words that are being repeated in each section. Not necessarily bio-information, but filler words. It will make each section a bit more cohesive and add a bit more volume. I'm sure you will fill it up! Be sure to add those citations and hyperlinks! I hope this was helpful.Abolden03 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Alexa Bolden[reply]

Abbey Ekong I like your organization and structure throughout. The picture is a nice visual and each section is organized by a title, making the article easy to read. This is a good outline and start to the final draft. Much more detail needs to be provided in each section to show a complete understanding of disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aekong2011 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Patel

I think this is a very good start to the page. You have a good strtucture and a good start to each section. The way you have everythign structured is good it has a good flow. There still needs to be more detailed added, but this is a draft. Make sure to elaborate on the diagnosis and the mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealhp427 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Patel:

I think you're on a good start. however, you definitely need to elaborate and have more content for all your sections (but i think you probably already know that). The structure looks great though, you have all the right sections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhipatel826 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think that you are off to a good start with your article. Many of the sections will need more information in order to give the reader a better understanding on what your topic is about. The skeleton or the outline is exactly what is needed for this assignment, so you are on the right track!

Darcelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddieudonne (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, right now this is a skeleton structure. Nearly all parts need substantially more material. Especially the abstract should include more of what you already have!
What you have is well-written, but there is so little that it's hard to comment well.
Link terms to other pages.
Most sections should be less dependent on primary literature. Look more for secondary sources for the non-recent research sections.

Sweiner02 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]