User talk:Hkyoung01/sandbox

Hkyoung01,

It is OK to edit the text that exists there, you don't need to start completely from scratch. In fact, keeping the existing text where it is neutral and accurate may make other editors more willing to accept your revisions. I like the existing first paragraph for example and think your proposed first paragraph would fit nicely after that. You must consider what a wiki reader is expecting. Some will only want the first sentence so they can know what the word means then move on.

Why did you remove the existing second paragraph? I thought it had useful examples and clarification about the disorder.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the higher the prevalence the more chance". Prevalence tells you something about a population not an individual so either dysgraphia often overlaps or it doesn't, but the sentence as it stands doesn't make sense. Prevalence may not be accurately assessed but it doesn't vary regularly.

As you write this and consider moving it out of your sandbox, recall that you are writing for the public, not for me. This means your language needs to be as clear and straightforward as possible. What does "cross-code" mean? This is not the sort of term you should likely use ever, but certainly not without explanation and VERY good reason. For this reason I think the first paragraph in factors causing is much more helpful than the second which is too full of complicated and unexplained terms.

Is this the place to discuss what appropriate training is? or should you just take that sentence out?

Can you put your third sentence of your proposed intro with the types of dysgraphia section? There is some overlapping info there.

Why reduce the info available under motor dysgraphia? Is it inaccurate?

Under Symptoms and side effects, many of my other comments apply (why are you starting from scratch?). The intent of the first sentence is not yet clear: we don't diagnoxe by age or gender etc, but by symptoms which you are about to discuss. The second paragraph is a single sentence and hard to follow. The third paragraph, which is also a single sentence, needs to be integrated with the second. As it stands "these" has no referent.

This is a bit of feedback before you do further work in your sandbox. There are other things, but I think my comments will give you some guidelines as you continue to edit your work. Great start. You have done quite a bit of work already.

There are things that I can't do until the references are provided, so don't leave that too late. I expect no changes will stand if the proper citations are not there right away.

Paula Marentette (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hkyoung01, Wow, this is really coming along. I like the additions you are planning for the teaching section in particular. That is very practical and concrete information. As a picky editing point. This sentence: "It may also be beneficial for the teacher to come up with other methods of assessing a child's knowledge other than written tests such as oral tests." could be made more straightforward perhaps with this change: teacher to devise methods of assessing a child's knowledge that are not based on writing, for example, oral testing." Your version has too many others, and I got confused...

In your treatment section, consider putting the third paragraph, recommending assessment by a clinician, first as then it would be followed by the treatment options.

Good work, I look forward to seeing your Did You Know submission.

Paula Marentette (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot about the refs. I don't know why they do that. I think you should put a note on Jorden's talk page and see if she can help you out there. Paula Marentette (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)