User talk:Mkvt/sandbox

Morgan Kretzing “Endocarditis” After analyzation of the “Endocarditis” article, I concluded there to be various issues, and resultantly affirmed that there was much room for improvement. Some of the most apparent factors that caught my attention included information distribution, layout utilization, missing information, and some minor grammatical errors. My first observation involved the “loaded” overview to the article. The introductory or “overview” article is essentially intended to provide a brief understanding of the overall article, in a broad sense. In this case, however, there is an overwhelming amount of facts incorporated into the intro, particular facts that should, instead, be supplemented into other sections of the article. For example, the topics of diagnostic factors and identification of signs/symptoms should be included within their own designated sections, to allow for a better distribution of information and overall flow to the article. Another critique of “Endocarditis” would be an ineffective use of layout. The few sections provided within the article are very broad and could easily be structured to deliver a more organized and concise format for readers. In regards to missing information, I discovered that the article failed to include any information pertaining to care after diagnosis, treatment or surgical options, or any details involving expected prognosis. Leaving out such critical topics in this particular type of article serves to be an incomplete and unhelpful source to readers. Lastly, it would also be beneficial to perform a grammar sweep of the entire article. For instance, I personally would change the “Cause” heading to “Causes”, given there are multiple classifications of Endocarditis. This approach helps avoid any overlooked misspellings and technical errors and, furthermore, increases the credibility of the overall article. Jakep15 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)