User:Patel.nikita17/sandbox2

Potential Article Editing[edit]
I am thinking of editing the article on Amyloid cardiomyopathy. I am thinking of adding a intro section, symptoms, diagnoses (tests that can be done), causes/mechanism, prognosis, treatments, potential preventative measures.

- a reference I will be starting with is http://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2016/07/07/14/59/cardiac-amyloidosis

Hi Nikita, I think your assigned article is interesting and I am excited to see how you develop your article. From your link, it seems that cardiac amyloidosis is a collection of diseases that result depending on where these beta-pleated sheets deposit. Knowing this, I think you should change your "symptoms" section to "diseases" and then list off the symptoms that the specific disease will have. This will allow for better organization in your article and remind readers that cardiac amyloidosis is a group of disease and not one specific disease. It seems like you have a clear layout of your article already and I agree with your proposed layout. I think it will convey your researched information nicely to an audience. Maybe, you can add another section called "Still Testing" to show some current research being done for cardiac amyloidosis cures and if you can find a review of these types of studies it would add reliability to your article.Good luck with your article! Bchen1100(talk) 20:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation[edit]
Article - Hand washing


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I think that everything in the article was relevant. I would say the only thing that distracted me was the amount of times that ash washing was mentioned in different sections. I felt that it could have been mentioned once and expanded rather than mentioned a couple of times and not really talked about.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I think that overall the article is neutral, however, there seems to be a bias in some of the paragraphs talking about how easy it is to wash hands. In the Developing countries section, the word essential tool was used and not quoted. This makes it seem like there is a bias but I am not positive.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think there should be more information for the promotional campaigns and developing countries section of the article.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Checking the links showed that they did support the claims made in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Many of the facts are referenced with sources from papers and the CDC and WHO. There are reliable sources.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * I think that most of the information is up to date, however, more recent statistics about the promotional campaigns can be used.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations include what sections should be added and when more information might be needed in a section that is already on the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated B-class and is part of the WikiProjects of Medicine, South Africa/PSP SA, Food and Drink/Foodservice. Sanitation, Occupational Safety and Health.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Patel.nikita17 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)