User talk:Lumesti/sandbox

comment

Lumesti (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

review 1

I like that in your article, considering that the topic involves a lot of large words that would make it quite difficult for someone who is has not taking a science class, but you did good making it as understandable as possible.

Three things i would fix is first i would try and find a few more facts under epidemiology if possible, unless the one sentence is all that could be found given there is no direct cause for this condition. Another thing i would change is in the intro to your topic, as you did good making it understandable as possible there are a small handful of words you could highlight to redirect the reader to so that they could have a better understanding of the word. The last thing i would correct and it might just be a personal preference but you can make the paragraphs appear better instead of having so many new line starts and if you condense them appearance wise it would look nicer Shadihasan11 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!

I did not find any more information on the epidemiology, that is why it is short.

I put paragraphs to start on a new subtopic that is underneath each section. If I continued in the same paragraph i felt it would make them lost thinking the original subtopic is the still going. But with a paragraph it starts something new, no matter how short.

Lumesti (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Weiner

Significant portions of this are directly or almost directly copied from source. This is still plagiarism, even if the source is cited. Any sections that contain significant plagiarism in the final draft will receive a 0.
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.
There is a lot of jargon in this article, and not all of it is necessary. Whenever possible, use lay terminology. When that's not possible it should be linked and/or defined.
Your mechanism is detailed and thorough. Now, just work on making sure that it is all properly paraphrased and as accessible as possible.
Missing a research section and there is recent research on this topic. If you're having trouble finding it, come talk to me!
I think you have most of the information you need! There's a lot of good information here and once it's put together as a final product, I think it will be a really solid article.

76.255.203.210 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review 3

I really liked how you took the time to quickly explain a few pertinent conditions such as Microorchidism and IGFS1 deficiency. I think these quick explanations can help readers quickly understand the correlation between these topics without having to refer to more articles while in the midst of reading your article! It was also great that you linked these and other specific terms so that readers have the opportunity to refer to those linked articles for more info if they please!

Don't forget to talk about research directions! I think it would be interesting to read about some research directed towards Macroorchidism and if there is any possibility for a future cure for Macroorchidism.

"To determine bilateral symmetric enlargement of the testes (i.e. macroorchidism), the testes must be greater than the 95th percentile of the confidence interval excluding males with early puberty." I would suggest explaining what this statistical data means for readers who are not familiar with how percentiles and confidence intervals work.

Lastly I would recommend linking terms every time they are mentioned/at least the first time you mention them. For example, when you reference the causes for macroorchidism in your abstract, you refer to hypothyroidism. I would link this use of hypothyroidism in your abstract right away, even though you also link hypothyroidism later on in your article. I think linking terms the first time they are brought up in your article can reduce any confusion by readers if they are unfamiliar with that term and don't take the time to see if the term is linked anywhere else in the article.

Ostelter (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]