User talk:Jratanawong/sandbox

Good job adding prevalence and incidence rates! In the following sentence are you talking about global prevalence of PD, if so, explicitly state that you are: "The prevalence of PD is widely considered to be from 100 to 200 per 100,000 with an annual incidence rate of 15 per 100,000 people." Some readers might not know what incidence rates and prevalence are, therefore, you should link the sentences talking about IR and PR to Wikipedia articles explaining IR and PR. We would also like to see citations on the sentences that you added (plagiarism without them). Additionally, open the first paragraph with "Parkinson's Disease (PD)..."

Maybe try to focus on PD differences in African and Asian ancestry and between men and women; try clearing these ideas up. It might be a good idea to describe the risk factors and protective factors in more detail and expand on them (Why are protective factors helpful? Why is there an increased risk for PD when a person is exposed to pesticides? Why are smokers less likely to get PD?). Rose Vanserra (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Parkinson's Disease Peer Review
The information added to this section is wonderful and really does improve the page. The global prevalence and the North American prevalence statistics integrate well into the paragraph. I would, however, be sure to indicate the year the statistics are found for ("as of...") if you can or it makes sense to. The sentence about the differences in continental prevalence is a nice clarification contribution. Again, adding the prevalence for PD for women in North America adds to the ratio stated before. The sentence directly after about some studies failing to detect a difference between the two sexes might need a quick summary of the study cited that contradicts what was said in the sentence before. Maybe add a sentence or two that states why the studies fail to detect a difference (screening, methods, reason etc). The sentence about an individual's odds of developing Parkinson's Disease is a bit odd right before a paragraph stating that most studies are flawed with PD risk factors. Perhaps moving the paragraph to after your added "one generally accepted.." so it flows better. Also just be consistent about referring to "Parkinson's Disease" as "PD" like the rest of the epi section. Very interesting input about caffeine and protecting against Parkinson's Disease.

Overall, I think the stats that you added really do help solidify the epi section. Only things that really need to be improved are clarification and maybe sentence placement to help with flow. Other than that, really great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeena Lead (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I thought the information you provided really added to the quality of the page. I thought the statistics were especially great! The material seems to be neutral and from credible sources. My only note would be to consistently refer to it as Parkinsons Disease or PD instead of both. I would also add a few sentences for flow, especially in the second paragraph. You could also add more specifics in the second paragraph, things like why the studies were flawed. The last sentence of the first paragraph could also be moved for flow. Overall GREAT job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgian6758 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What your group has added in the terms of content seems great! The rates and statistics really help illustrate the article. Also, the information is neutral so there is no issue there. My main critique is that the wording is a bit advanced for the general population but that isn't a huge deal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktincher (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)