User talk:Mizrebel83
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Michigan_Medical_School/Med_Communications_Wikipedia_April_2020_UMMS_(Spring) . |
Mizrebel83, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Mizrebel83! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Mizrebel83, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Great article! Here is my feedback:
Introductory sentence is concise and accurate. Summary could be fleshed out a little more (ex: just say the general premise of what this wikipedia article will review). I think doing so will provide good context to the appropriate subheadings you have already laid out.
Headings and subheadings are good! If anything, I would just suggest using more paragraph breaks in your subheadings. Ex: Can seperate the paragraphs for when anticoagulation is indicated vs. not indicated.
As far as the content, everything so far seems relevant and an appropriate number of links are used. I would just flesh out a little subheading a little more if applicable or at least the treatment section.
I thought the readibility of the article was pretty good! There was one part “pylephlebitis” which I found challenging but I liked that the link gave me a pop-up explanation of what that was. If anything, would just encourage paragraph breaks to make sure paragraphs are not too large and daunting.
The balance and tone of the article is very good. Seems neutral where no viewpoints are overrepresented. My only feedback would be to flesh out Diagnosis & Treatment more since this is likely the most important reason why people might be looking up PVT.
I like the image that you added! Maybe consider a non-radiographic image for versatility.
Most statements seem to be supported with a reference! The exception to this is the statement about myeloproliferative disorder and the statement about D-dimers and fibrin breakdown. I would also encourage you to add more references since several places were linked to article 1. I don’t think this necessarily needs to be changed but maybe consider other references as you continue to add content.
The sources used thus far are good sources and appropriate. The citations seem complete as far as all fields of the citation template.
My understanding of the existing article is that there were almost no subheadings but whatever was on the article initially was approrpiate (although there was hardly anything on the page initially).
The previous article seemed logical as far as subheadings (ex: signs and symptoms) but I like what you’ve done with the subheadings since “Mechanism” “Diagnosis” and “Treatment” seems more definitive and allows for a more logical organization.
Key Gaps are now being addressed. I can see there has been a lot of progress from the original article. Smaller additions have also been added (ex: relevant links to other wiki pages). If applicable, I would also encourage you to add maybe a little more information to the body of your paragraph in case people do not want to click on the external links but still want to have some context to what you are talking about.
The New article seems to have laid out comprehensive subheadings for the topic. I think each subheading just needs some more content and a versatility of references to provide a more broad overview.
The article body does use relevant, logical sections that follow guidelines for the topic. I think the development of this article will be more apparent after the user adds more content but this article is off to a good start.
Overall, I like everything in the article so far! I think the organization of the article is logical (Ex: “Mechanism”, “Diagnosis”, & “Treatment) and the paragraphs flow pretty well (I have noted a couple instances when they don’t in my comments). My greatest piece of advice would be to add a greater variety of sources to ensure you are covering the breadth of each sub-topic. Overall, however, I enjoyed this article and feel as though I have a better understanding of Portal Vein Thrombosis. Amircha (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)