User talk:Jmontgomery15/sandbox

This is a great start to your Wikipedia article and it is very informative on the topic of situs ambiguous. Primarily, I like how you explained the condition in detail within your first paragraph. However, there are many run on sentences within the first paragraph, making it harder to understand. I suggest proofreading these sentences. Additionally, I also like how you broke down the signs and symptoms section, because you included a lot of information to support your topic. I would also suggest utilizing more links within your article. For example use links within the diagnosis portion to tests that the audience would not know about. I know you are still in the midst of adding more information to your article, for example to the diagnosis, pathophysiology and recent research sections. Overall, I like what you have added to your article thus far. Ssheth01 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you have great information on your topic and the article is thoroughly written. The fact that you have each section subdivided further makes it easier for someone to understand the material. However, I would suggest rephrasing some of the sentences because it seems difficult to understand the material for someone who is not familiar with medical terminology (layman). I had a friend of mine take a look and she was a tad bit confused. I would suggest adding in links for the various medical terms to make it easier to read. Overall, it is a great article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epatel4492 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweiner02 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, clear descriptions.
 * Could use a lot more linking.
 * I like the division by features in symptoms, but you could leave out the 1.1 subheading, because you don't have any other subheadings on that level. It would increase clarity.
 * What genes have been found that contribute here? How do they do so?
 * Pathphysiology seems incomplete and doesn't flow or have a coherent organization.
 * Make sure that it is comprehensible at a lay level and that you link all jargon.
 * If there isn't one cause, you should talk about the causes there are.
 * If a criterion doesn't fit, just leave it out, don't put it in with no content.
 * Obviously the last few sections aren't really there yet. The outline style is ok at this stage, but recent research and Management aren't even at outline state.