User talk:Shadihasan11/sandbox

Review of Your Article #2

While going over your article, I felt that you did your descriptions very well. You were very detailed in explaining treatments, conditions, and other factors of your disease. However, keep these things in mind, as you continue to arrange your article further.

For the Pathology section, try to make it flow. The information was good, but give more of "story". It just felt like a bulleted list, crossing off how does the disease forms. Make it flow in a more natural way.

You also have a tendency to use bulleted lists for most of the sections. Try to break up the format so that it can be more visually presenting.

You should also try to explain briefly the topics that you cannot find a link towards. You were doing very well in this aspect, but I saw a few terms that you didn't explain. Otherwise, you are on the right track. Rk160 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Review By Salume Osakue

• Good comment = Well detailed sections and organization.
• 3 things to work on =

- In the treatment section, make sure you cite the last two statements

- In the diagnosis section, the fourth bullet point statement needs to be edited. There's an error in the sentence.

- Remember to link all the words that people with no scientific background or knowledge would know. Lumesti (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Weiner

• There is a lot of jargon in this article, and not all of it is necessary. Whenever possible, use lay terminology. When that's not possible it should be linked and/or defined. Some of this appears to be the result of "word shuffling" where instead of true paraphrasing, words from the source are just rearranged enough to avoid plagiarism. This is borderline on avoiding plagiarism and is not good practice. Make sure the material is truly in your own words.
• Whenever you do need to use a medical term, reference any specific condition, body part, or treatment, link to the wikipedia article for it the first time you use it! In general, more links are better.
• Most of what's listed in pathophysiology is just description of the conditions, not actual mechanism. Walkthrough what actually happens: how it happens and how it causes the signs and symptoms. This is just like the mechanism for the case studies.
• Most of the article is well cited, but there are some sections that are missing citations. Particularly the lists often don't have citations for all items.
• I think some of these sections where there are longer parts for each separate piece would benefit from subheadings for them.
• You put together a lot of material here! This is tricky because it's so many separate things and you've done a great job of organizing all of that.
• Missing a research section. There is certainly recent research on this topic and it should be addressed and summarized.

Sweiner02 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Review by Rawan

I thought the wikipedia article was actually very informative considering it is rare condition! It was a really good read with a lot of useful information. I would just comment on a couple things. There are some more words that I feel like can be replaced, like particularly; 'post op'. Furthermore, I would avoid sectioning information in bullet points maybe use paragraphs that way you can also link things together better and maybe you can even elaborate on a few sections that way. I feel like the section on types can be elaborated on a little more, if there are any information available. Otherwise, it was overall really cohesive and well-written! Rawanabualjass (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Review by Kennedi

• You have a lot of references! That’s really good. I also like that you added a section (“Types”) based on the needs of your article even though that wasn’t a generally required section. Props to you.

• This is super nit-picky, but I noticed in your abstract (and a few other parts of your article) that some of your spacing between your commas and period are off. It may be a clearer read if this is corrected.
• I think that bullets are useful, but it may be a smoother read if there are alternations between paragraph format and bullet points.
• I think it could be a good idea to add your citations more thoroughly just to protect against any suspicions of plagiarism.

Lillexa0316 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)