Talk:Meningeal syphilis

Kunal Kambo Puri
1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability:2

4. Refs: 0 needs far more, and the location of in-line-citation #6 doesn't make sense

5. Links: 0 missing except at the very beginning

6. Responsive to comments: 2 none except for peer-review

7. Formatting: 1 needs category and course banner

8. Writing: 1 Check for subject-verb agreement. Remember to use the words "a," "an," and "the" when they're needed.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 good use of pictures, but they are not cited

Total: 13/20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunal Kambo Puri (talk • contribs) 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Poornarajeevan: Thank you for the feedback! I changed my grammatical errors!

Anish Potnis
1. Quality of Information: 2 Excellent. I think your article is thorough and gives the reader a good overview of the disease.

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 2 Nicely written. Needs in-line citations though!

4. Refs: 1

Needs in-line citations! There are very few. Also, you need more references.

5. Links: 2

6. Responsive to comments: N/A

7. Formatting: 1 Needs in-line citations~

8. Writing: 2

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2

I gave you a 2 for outstanding because of your use of pictures. Its a good job overall, the main thing is you *need to add in-line citations!*

_______________

Total:   18    out of 20 Anishpotnis (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Poornarajeevan: Thank you for everything! I definitely added in the in-line citations and fixed up references!

Bahar Rahsepar
1. Quality of Information: 1 Although you have provided a nice lay out and through explanations for the topic specially for the first sections, but the article lacks substantial support. It is nice that you have a review article from 2010, but other than that other articles are out dated. It would make sense for me that this subject be well studied earlier, but just according to the rubric, I would suggest you to find more recent references for your arguments. Besides some of the sections are not complete yet. 2. Article size: 2 3. Readability:2 4. Refs:0 It is required to have at least 10 articles to support your work. I suggest doing more research and providing more support. 5. Links: 1 6. Responsive to comments: 2 (No comment to respond to) 7. Formatting: 1 8. Writing:1 9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2 10. Outstanding?: 1 _______________ Total:  13     out of 20 Bahar.rahsepar (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some of the terms in your article that could benefit from hyperlinks, which would help the reader. Your article lacks link to other articles. Also based on Wikipedia policies, external link could not be google. Although I guess you have already fixed this in your more recent revisions.
 * Adding category to your article could help it as well.
 * I suggest CSF findings to be a sub-section in the diagnosis section, this could contribute to better readability and lay out for your article.
 * Clinical features section also could benefit from some more explanations and edits.
 * Your article is a medicine related article, I suggest to pay a closer attention to Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles
 * This older version has some typos and incomplete sections. Also some of the sections are incomplete.
 * Article is nice in terms of having a good outline, but need more work to make it stand out.

Poornarajeevan: Thank you bahar! I did a bit of editing of the formatting after you mentioned it and it turned out great!

Poornarajeevan: Hi Bahar, Anish, and Kunal- Thank you so much for your responses! I have definitely made changes to my wiki article since you all have last seen it, so please take a look when you all get the chance. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poornarajeevan (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)