User talk:ErikENPHMajor/sandbox 2

Hanna's peer review
Nice work: I like the information you have decided to include in the article. Below are a few things to consider integrating to increase the effectiveness of your work to improve the article! - I love that you added a new section looking at causality. This is a key component to epidemiology and should be included in this discussion. However, I think you may need more of a lead and overview of the information you included about cause. I would like to see more of a heads up and transition into understanding the purpose of the new section and highlighting the importance of it, instead of just finding a list of causes. This might make your statements more powerful and make more of an interesting lead to encourage readers to keep going. -Have you decided how the organization will look with a new section (where it will be found)? This isn't clear in your sandbox (which I understand is a difficult place to communicate how your changes fit with the article). I think it can be very powerful previous to the discussion on the United States since the causes can be more universal, but if they are more specific to the US I would love to see more information indicating its specificity! -Does the section of the stages of prevention fit best in a section on comorbidities? This is a great piece of information, but would fit better in its own section in my opinion because it truly is looking at the ways of addressing the causes on multiple levels. Creating very clear defined sections with information on topic in each can help navigating and finding information easily. - I think you did a good job of maintaining neutrality, not placing 'fault' or making any negative connotations about those affected. This I think is especially key for this article. -You included great information, but the flow of sentences and structure could use some help. My opinion is the 'readability' of your article is not as strong, and could benefit from being portrayed as more of a paragraph, instead of listing facts. -Good job pulling from multiple sources! Is there a reason they are cited by listing the website instead of using the numbering citations built into Wikipedia? Wiki's way of organizing sources is very clear and defined and helps maintain the formatting of wiki as a whole. Overall you picked a great article to work on, and clearly did your research to include more quality info. My comments are focused on making that content easier for others to access and understand so your work can be appreciated!
 * Hi, thanks for your response. I really think you made good points and I tried to use all your points when I did my final revisions for my sandbox.

Nita's Peer Review
I agree with Hanna's review, especially about the readability of the article, but no worries because this was only supposed to be a rough draft anyway. One big thing that caught my attention was that the US was focused on heavily even though other countries were mentioned in the introduction. Since the article is "Epidemiology of Childhood Obesity," not, "Epidemiology of US Childhood Obesity," I think it would be super cool to add more data about the other areas in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conita Dottor (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you to you as well. I tried to take what you said to better my sandbox.

ErikENPHMajor (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)