User talk:Lzuniga04/sandbox

You have a lot of good information here, and your structure and organization are well laid out.
All sections need thorough, in-text citations.
Link any term that is important or uncommon to its own wikipedia article the first time it shows up.
The start of the article is all about infants and the way this occurs in newborns, but the rest of it doesn't seem to connect to that. I would like to see both more discussion early on about other cases and more detail later about what happens in newborns.
Pathophysiology is dense and jargony. Use less jargon and give a more complete and lay accessible explanation.
Your link to epiphora currently goes to disambiguation. Make sure it links to the correct page.
Why is there an asterisk on your Pathophysiology section?
I'm not sure why you combined prognosis and epidemiology. They don't seem particularly connected in your explanation. I would make them separate sections.
In a quick look, I found several articles on google scholar from the past 5 years. Don't go back further if you don't have to.
Citations in your Research section should be done using the standard citation method, same as everything else. Don't paste in random links, just cite the article.

--Sweiner02 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really like that you included a complications section because it gives that much more information and hyperlinked sources.
I personally feel that where you have your pre-existing conditions piece under causes might fit better under the prognosis/epidemiology portion in terms of how the page reads.
The last sentence before your bulleted list in the Diagnosis section reads a little odd. Possibly rephrasing this and creating a break in this section would make it more distinct/clear.
The research section could use a summary sentence of what was found or what future directions might look like.

Jenlorenzana (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate how organized and neat your page looks. You covered every topic concisely and you hyperlinked a lot of things that may bring up questions people may have while reading.
Under pathophysiology, you should hyperlink "maxillary bone" because that is not a bone that is really common knowledge. In the same section, it says "In dacryocystocele there this tube gets blocked," which you should consider rephrasing or say "there is this tube".
In the diagnosis section, you could maybe provide a brief description of what you are looking for with each test, especially the imaging studies.
You could try adding another research study or expand on the one you already have listed to explain what researchers are looking for.

NoamaanF1201 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has many positive aspects: · I thought that your page was very well organized and structured, it was easy to follow along with and understand. I like the addition of bullet points to separate your ideas. · Your information was relevant and concise. · You hyperlinked relevant topics, that some people would need clarification on. Some improvements could be made: · You are missing in-text citations, these are essential to add so a reader can follow-up on your sources. · There are several terms that could be hyper-linked throughout the article. For example, 'dacryocytocele symptoms' in the prevention/treatment section. You hyper-linked several terms already, but I think you should read over and add some more to other terms. · Although your information is very informative, some sections could use revision due to the fact that it is a little dense. This is specifically seen in the prognosis/epidemiology section, the information is dense and not concise. I would advise you to organize your ideas in a more structured manner. (Caronavas1214 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)User: Caronavas1214 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020[reply]

I appreciated everyones feedback on my work. For the most part it was positive constructive criticism and I just simply needed to update/ edit a couple of things. I did however not consider all the suggestions from my peers. I was told to hyperlink more terms throughout my project, however there were some terms that I was not able to hyperlink. There was not a hyperlink available for the term that would help explain the term. Also, as for adding more information on the condition among infants, I found the information to be relatively the same to the information for adults. I did not want to be redundant and simply left it out. Lzuniga04 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]