User talk:Apatel1317/sandbox

Your article is well put together so far. The abstract includes all the requirements. Mechanism could use alitle work maybe add some info on the vascular systemic disorders, or link a few pages to other wiki articles, so we cold try to understand it. Symptoms is straight to the point, also has alot of good links. Diagnosis is fine. Causes and prevention needs a little more work. Is there no possible prevention for this disease. Treatment and prognosis is fine as well. The History section, in y opinion, should be spilt up where the first paragraph about 1942 history should be put in its own section right after the abstract. So the remaining section will be the recent research section, which includes things from 5-10 years. Plus overall there is a decent amount of links.

Anthony.nour (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A few of the sections need a little more work (mechanism, cause & prevention). I think you should add a few more "links" throughout the page making it easier understand some of the vocabulary that is being used, it will also make it easier so you don't have to define everything. I like the history part, I would suggest to put it above the mechanism section. Only part that seems to be missing is the recent research. Overall I think you have very good start, good information on the disease. Just go a little further in-depth. (Pdesai93 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC))

--Sweiner02 (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Try to make your abstract a little more approachable. Remember: lay audience.
 * A quick search found a lot of mechanism information not included here. Yes, there's a lot we don't know, but there's also more we do, and including the theories is also important.
 * Needs more links to other pages.
 * Nice, clear diagnosis section.
 * Missing recent research.