User talk:Daniemr/Mitral annular calcification

Introduction -	Good introductory sentence. Concise and nicely summarizes the topic. -	Rest of introduction touches all the points of the article. -	Maybe break up the 4th sentence, starting with “however.” All good points but I think would be more effective in two sentences. (Great point, it would probably make it more readable as well!) Daniemr (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Article -	Pathophysiology nicely summarized. I don’t think there is any way to make the readability a lower level without compromising the content. The paragraph nicely transitions to the associations/causes paragraph. -	I like how associations/causes paragraph is in bullet points. Makes it easier for reader to follow along. -	In the epidemiology paragraph, I would like to know what causes MS in MAC if it does not produce “the classical fusion of the commissures.” That may just be someone with a medical background but to me I think it is interesting. (I'll try to touch on that a bit perhaps, and maybe add a link to rheumatic heart disease?) Daniemr (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC) -	The diagnosis paragraph is very nicely summarized and easy to follow. Once again, I don’t think there is any way to decrease the readability level without compromising the content. I have the same problem with my topic. Agree, at some point the terminology is what it is Daniemr (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC) References -	Every statement or paragraph is cited and can be easily followed. -	All your references are good and you make good use of secondary sources.

Jlautze (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent suggestions, Jake!