User talk:Isaacadu1/sandbox
- Very detailed and well-written article. I thought you did a good job utilizing your sources by citing them consistently, as well as include in-text links of any terms that would be potentially unknown to a reader. Well done!
- I would possibly consider restructuring the signs & symptoms section by including the variation of symptoms in paragraph form but then listing out the general signs and symptoms in bullet points so that it is accessible and easier to understand for the reader.
- Since the mechanism is unknown, maybe include the major gene players involved in the syndrome and how they are expressed.
- Consider using subheadings in the treatment section to make the distinctions between sexes clear, and to break up the information of the section.
--Iolejniczak (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- The content is very good, informative and detailed. I believe having the subdivisions was an excellent way to familiarize the reader with the information.
- The section for symptoms and symptoms was very good, however, I would move that to the pathophysiology section. The symptoms and symptoms could have a small paragraph giving a general idea and then possibly stating what would show due to missing that hormone etc...
- I would also cite where the information for the prognosis was given, even if it was used already.
- The treatment section had a lot of great information, but I would just organize it in a way to make it more simplified.
Yusur.alj (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- All sections need thorough, in-text citations (every paragraph should have at least one).
- Link any term that is important or uncommon to its own wikipedia article the first time it shows up.
- You seem to be conflating two different things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonadotropin-releasing_hormone_insensitivity#:~:text=Gonadotropin%2Dreleasing%20hormone%20(GnRH),(GnRH)%2C%20resulting%20in%20a and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_hypogonadotropic_hypogonadism . My understanding was that you were writing on the first one, but some of what you say seems to relate to the second one.
- Cause: You say that we don't know, but also talk about a mutation. That's the cause. Work with that.
- Genetic testing is pretty easily available. Saying that you can't test this until it's easily available sounds weird.
- Some of this reads as advice to clinicians and patients. Keep it objective, like an encyclopedia article, not directed or as suggestions.
- Missing recent research.
- You have a lot of good information in particular sections here. I appreciate how detailed your Treatment and Daignosis sections are.