User talk:DaBearsBillSwerski/sandbox

Review By Salume Osakue

Good comment = Good job hitting getting information for all the sections.
3 things to work on:

- In the diagnosis section, the set up is a bit confusing. Linking the source of the stages, listing the stages, then continuing the sentence is confusing to me as a reader who has never heard of the disease before or these stages. I would say reformat the listing or just say "from stages 0 to IV" instead of listing them. It would have been better to list then explain but you already cited it so there's no real need to do so.

- In the abstract there needs to be a summary of the treatment, the mechanism, and all the other sections.

- remember to link words that people without scientific background will not know. For example, people with no scientific background will not know what "hyperplasia" is. Lumesti (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Most of this is copied directly or almost directly from sources. This is plagiarism even if you cite your source! In the final, you will receive a 0 for any section that contains significant plagiarism. I would strongly suggest that you take out all of that material, break it down into simple bullet points and rewrite it clearly, from scratch in your own words. preferably mixing up material from multiple sources.

Remove the heading from the beginning. The disease name will populate itself on the final site. The abstract does not have a heading.
Needs a lot more citations. Cite thoroughly throughout the document.
Some of your citations don't appear to be using wikipedia's citation manager. If you're having trouble with that, come see me and I can help you out, but they all need to use that.
Avoid jargon whenever possible. Terms like ipsilateral are medically correct, but not necessary for a lay article and will confuse many readers. Try to go through this with a friend or family member without any medical or science background and get some help figuring out which parts they don't understand. This is not currently written at a lay level.
Whenever you do need to use a medical term, reference any specific condition, body part, or treatment, link to the wikipedia article for it the first time you use it! In general, more links are better.
Check through for small grammar, capitalization, and phrasing errors.
The staging section needs to be restructured in a way that is clear and logical.
Your prognosis section doesn't really include any details of prognosis.
Missing research section.
There's a lot of good material and information here. If you use this as your notes to write it from scratch, it could be really good!

--Sweiner02 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the Non-traumatic mechanisms The Research section needs information. The Prognosis section also needs more information. some Medical terms should be defined or a page should be linked. Aliaa01 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]