User talk:Emilyc44/sandbox

Emily I really like how you lengthened the introduction. It is quite long now, but if you read the first sentence you can get a good general understanding of the concept, and if you read on you get a better idea of what details the articles focuses on. I also really liked how you talked about the implications of the phobia on a person’s professional life. The phobia seems much more important when you think about its effects on a broader spectrum. Reading your edits made me think of the phobia as a more serious condition than the existing page! I was slightly confused when reading the section on the effects on health. I think if you explicitly stated that some individuals die because they refuse to receive treatment because of the phobia. Even just citing one case study would be helpful. I was just unsure if that section was talking for the potential health outcomes for those with this phobia, or not. I do really like how you talk about how this condition can affect many facets of an individual’s life, but I think that more could be added about the range of severity of this phobia. The Symptoms section does a nice job of explaining the physical symptoms, but does everyone with the phobia respond in the same way? I did really like how you broke everything up into smaller sections. I think this makes it easier to find exactly what you are interested in. I should add more smaller sections in my article. I also like how you added information about the implications on the ufferes lives. I should also think if I can logically incorporate a section like this into my article. Hogan.jac (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

1.First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I really like how you reorganized, removed, and added sections. I think all of the changes you made when it comes to this really help to improve the flow of the article. Jacqueline already mentioned this, but I also like how you expanded the introduction. It provides a great overview of the topic and also includes some of the important information that you then expand upon in the article. 2.What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? All of your information is quite good, but the article just seems quite dense because there is so much text. I wouldn't suggest removing any of your content, but rather maybe find some sort of image to add to help break the article up a bit, or reorganize some of your information (maybe on the different treatments) into table(s). 3.What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Like I mentioned above, maybe just find some sort of way to help "break up" some of the text, so that it is a bit easier to read. 4.Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I really like that you tackled an entirely article to completely overhaul. I was only planning on adding a section to an existing article, but now I am considering the possibility of also doing more to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyb9798 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

== Strong work on your drafted contributions/changes to the bii-type phobia article, Emily. The expansion of the lead really helps to crystalize the topic for the reader in a logically-organized manner. The planned contributions (causes, etc.) will also positively contribute to the development of this stub. Are there any images you might add? Amyc29 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)