User talk:Caronavas1214/sandbox


 * The signs and symptoms section is really good in terms of explanation and I enjoyed your use of bullet points to order the different types of symptoms.


 * It would be beneficial to, if you do not know the mechanism of your disease, talk a little more about the mechanism of the causes that you do know, like lymphangiomia that you mentioned. Because from your mechanism section I am not really sure what the mechanism is fully.


 * I think including some related studies about similar diseases would be beneficial because I am not really sure what the causes are

Smuq318 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You should talk about what a physician should expect to see in the diagnosis section because you say "the presence is evident due to characteristics" but I am not sure what that would look like in reference to your diagnostic tools*

Thank you for the helpful comments! I have edited the mechanism and will also look into the diagnosis section. I agree that research some diagnosis tools would be beneficial. - Caroline NavasCaronavas1214 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

--Mdiana294 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)--Mdiana294 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)--Mdiana294 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The last sentence under mechanism is not finished. How does the mechanism have an effect on the body
 * Can these diagnosis give also a different type of disease.
 * For treatment: Is there risk factors associated with the 3 different treatemnts you described? Adding a picture of a type of treatment. Are there lifestyle changes asscoiated with living with this condition?
 * Overall it is detailed and gives a summary of each section. I would suggest adding Epidemiolgy section if possible and also including information on that topic! Very interesting, and your background is able to give insight into Lymphohemangioma.

Thank you for the tips! I will look over the last sentence. Also, I agree that some more research on the mechanism would be helpful in the explanation of the article overall. I am also considering adding more pictures for the relevant sections of the article. - Caroline NavasCaronavas1214 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Smorgan1600 (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Sam Morgan
 * Abstract is a great summary of the disease!
 * Small but maybe better organize the signs and symptoms to have less bullet points so it is a little easier to read
 * You may not have had a chance to finish the mech but that was a little confusing for me
 * Maybe add some studies that are currently taking place in the research portion to better explain what we still do not understand

Thank you for the help! I will review and edit the mechanism section, there is more research that I would do. This will help in the composition of the article overall. I was also considering editing the section of the current research being done and in the past. - Caroline NavasCaronavas1214 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Lzuniga04 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you described the mechanism section a bit more. I understand if theres not enough information for the mechanism but try to explain what things like (lymphatic malformation) mean, that way a reader that doesn't know much about this disease understands it easily.
 * In your background section you stated that it is commonly seen among children and male patients. It would be beneficial if you included more information on that throughout your report. Such as what percentage of children get this condition (example: 1 out of every 1000) and explain why is it that this condition is more rare among women patients.
 * Also, is the diagnosis the same among children and adults? When you mean children, how young are these patients?
 * Overall, I thought your presentation was great! I really thought it easy to follow along and understand. I feel like people who wouldn't know what the condition is would understand it well from your presentation.

Thank you for the helpful tips! I will edit the mechanism section. Also, I agree that there is more current facts or statistics that could be added to explain the prevalence of this disease. Once again, thank you! - Caroline NavasCaronavas1214 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

--Sweiner02 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Background is not a section. This should start with an abstract or lead, with no header. This is a reasonable lead, although you should make sure you have a solid overall summary, some bits may need to be added.
 * Use common terms and easy to understand language whenever you can. When you do need medical terminology make sure you link and/or define it.
 * Some of what you have listed in your recent research isn't actually research, just summaries about the condition. There is recent research. Make sure you use it.
 * When you reuse a source, reuse it in the citation manager. Do not create a new citation.
 * You have done a good job of thoroughly citing throughout.

Thank you Dr. Weiner for the helpful tips and review of the article. I will remove the background section and turn that portion of the article into a more detailed and well-rounded description of the disease. In the editing, I will try to use common and easy terms throughout. I will also change the citations of sources that I have already utilized. Thanks again!- Caroline NavasCaronavas1214 (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)