User talk:Lszleszynski/sandbox

Lucy

I liked how you formatted your wiki page. Everything is clear cut because you wrote everything sectionally. I liked how you described the disease, treatments, diagnosis, and mechanisms. I think the only thing I would recommend changing is try to explain the disease in a more non-scientific way. Since, we are writing this article for the general public, think about how you would describe your topic to someone who does not know a thing about biology. I liked all the details you put into each sections, but if you can minimize the usage of complex scientific words and try to summarize it in your own words. Additionally, if I didn't know you disease and what it was then I'm sure I would have had hard time picturing this disease. Because your disease has a complex name and its not something you hear about that often, I would highly recommend you inserting a picture of your disease. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, you just have to insert that and it will catch any readers attention and hopefully they will be able to understand it better. Overall, I really liked your article and I feel you have a lot covered. It just needs proof reading and minor adjustments.

lpanchal50.76.81.49 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the way you included some great see also pages, and overall you're doing a really good job of linking to other relevant pages (although there are places where more would be useful).
I really like your use of list boxes, although some additional detail below might be useful.
Look at how to cite in wikipedia. You can use the citation button, or just copy how other pages do it.
Does using etiology rather than more common words like mechanism or cause add anything? Watch for things like this
I'm finding your organizational structure a little confusing. I'm not sure what the classification section means, or what goes in that rather than other sections.
Make sure to link to the wikipedia pages for genes when they exist. That will add a lot of clarity
How do problems with the SOS-1 protein cause this disease? There seems to be a rather large gap in your mechanism. If we don't know the answer, make sure to say that.
Your diagnosis almost seems closer to symptoms. What would a doctor need and do to diagnose this?
I don't think dividing up the studies like you did helps with clarity. Just summarize them and cite appropriately.
Make sure to communicate to a lay audience

Sweiner02 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, I liked your article! I like the way you formatted it and included list boxes and bullet points. You also included other wiki pages and outside links, which is helpful. For the symptoms section, maybe try to add more information or explain each symptom. Try to use terms that general readers will understand. Also, use wiki's cite template. Good job! -Etny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecandelario (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wiki article comments ,sorry for the delay..

Overall, nice article. Have to do editing . Instead of writing "source" for referencing you can use superscript. ShebaPrasad28 (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]