User talk:Leopolmd8966/sandbox

Larsa Frans's Peer Review
1.	This epidemiology section has good explanations of the different types and causes of the disease with data to back up the claims. 2.	It was helpful to see the disease burden from an economic stand point. 3.	All your sources seem to be from credible places and most are from peer reviewed journals. 4.     The introduction sentence was a good indication of what the section will be focused on (cause and variables) : "The prevalence of conjunctivitis is related to the underlying cause which can be influenced by the age of the patient as well as the time of year" 5.     It was interesting to read about the seasonal trends of the disease and when it is most prevalent.

1.	A sentence found in the second paragraph was confusing; “23 cases per 1000 person-years were found in those with type 1 diabetes mellitis, while 13.5 cases per 1000 person-years were found in the controls of this study,” you might want to explain this study and what the results mean. Some of the people who read this article might not know what person-years are and therefore not know what the study is concluding. 2.     Further explanations on statistics given about the disease could help in some cases, but overall the data seems to flow with the claims given. 3.     The last part of the first paragraph is all statistical data, and it seems cluttered with data but not a lot of explanation. You might want to space out the numbers or try to combine sentences with similar topics so it flows easier.

example: "The most common etiological agent for viral conjunctivitis is human adenovirus (HAdV). Infection by human adenovirus accounts for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis." could change it to: The most common etiological agent for viral conjunctivitis is human adenovirus (HAdV) which accounts for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis. Or change it to: The most common etiological agent that accounts for 65% to 90% of viral conjunctivitis cases is human adenovirus (HAdV).

Larsa Frans (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Jackbow's Peer Review
1. The lead sentence for your epidemiology section is great because it previews exactly what is to come in the article, more specifically, the prevalence of conjunctivitis. It is also very clear that along with prevalence, causes and risk factors are used to explain the epidemiology. The use of statistics and other numbers, like dollar amounts, help the reader fully grasp the prevalence. All sources seem to reputable, but what is most impressive is that there are nine sources for this draft. The more sources used, the more neutral the content which makes the section more reliable.

2. The epidemiology draft section for conjunctivitis could use a clearer structure. The content that is touched upon is all important but sometimes vague. The first paragraph alludes to allergic conjunctivitis and then the second paragraph discusses it even more. It would make most sense to discuss the topic of allergic conjunctivitis all in the same paragraph and move on. This structure issue may also be corrected by improving the detail on certain statements to reduce vagueness. For example, viral conjunctivitis is briefly mentioned in the first paragraph in between the topics of acute conjunctivitis and allergic conjunctivitis. Try expanding on viral conjunctivitis. Balanced coverage will help fix the structure issue.

3. The sentence, "Allergic conjunctivitis accounts for 15% of eye related primary care consultations - most including seasonal exposures in the spring and summer or perpetual conditions", is slightly confusing. Are there other exposure periods besides seasonal or perpetual?

4. In your epidemiology draft, I noticed there is reference to a specific study. I believe that is a great use of strong evidence and will apply that concept to my article!

Jackbow (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)