User talk:Lzuniga04/sandbox

--Sweiner02 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a lot of good information here, and your structure and organization are well laid out.
 * All sections need thorough, in-text citations.
 * Link any term that is important or uncommon to its own wikipedia article the first time it shows up.
 * The start of the article is all about infants and the way this occurs in newborns, but the rest of it doesn't seem to connect to that. I would like to see both more discussion early on about other cases and more detail later about what happens in newborns.
 * Pathophysiology is dense and jargony. Use less jargon and give a more complete and lay accessible explanation.
 * Your link to epiphora currently goes to disambiguation. Make sure it links to the correct page.
 * Why is there an asterisk on your Pathophysiology section?
 * I'm not sure why you combined prognosis and epidemiology. They don't seem particularly connected in your explanation. I would make them separate sections.
 * In a quick look, I found several articles on google scholar from the past 5 years. Don't go back further if you don't have to.
 * Citations in your Research section should be done using the standard citation method, same as everything else. Don't paste in random links, just cite the article.

Jenlorenzana (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I really like that you included a complications section because it gives that much more information and hyperlinked sources.
 * I personally feel that where you have your pre-existing conditions piece under causes might fit better under the prognosis/epidemiology portion in terms of how the page reads.
 * The last sentence before your bulleted list in the Diagnosis section reads a little odd. Possibly rephrasing this and creating a break in this section would make it more distinct/clear.
 * The research section could use a summary sentence of what was found or what future directions might look like.

NoamaanF1201 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate how organized and neat your page looks. You covered every topic concisely and you hyperlinked a lot of things that may bring up questions people may have while reading.
 * Under pathophysiology, you should hyperlink "maxillary bone" because that is not a bone that is really common knowledge. In the same section, it says "In dacryocystocele there this tube gets blocked," which you should consider rephrasing or say "there is this tube".
 * In the diagnosis section, you could maybe provide a brief description of what you are looking for with each test, especially the imaging studies.
 * You could try adding another research study or expand on the one you already have listed to explain what researchers are looking for.

Your article has many positive aspects: · I thought that your page was very well organized and structured, it was easy to follow along with and understand. I like the addition of bullet points to separate your ideas. · Your information was relevant and concise. · You hyperlinked relevant topics, that some people would need clarification on. Some improvements could be made: · You are missing in-text citations, these are essential to add so a reader can follow-up on your sources. · There are several terms that could be hyper-linked throughout the article. For example, 'dacryocytocele symptoms' in the prevention/treatment section. You hyper-linked several terms already, but I think you should read over and add some more to other terms. · Although your information is very informative, some sections could use revision due to the fact that it is a little dense. This is specifically seen in the prognosis/epidemiology section, the information is dense and not concise. I would advise you to organize your ideas in a more structured manner. (Caronavas1214 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)User: Caronavas1214 (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2020

I appreciated everyones feedback on my work. For the most part it was positive constructive criticism and I just simply needed to update/ edit a couple of things. I did however not consider all the suggestions from my peers. I was told to hyperlink more terms throughout my project, however there were some terms that I was not able to hyperlink. There was not a hyperlink available for the term that would help explain the term. Also, as for adding more information on the condition among infants, I found the information to be relatively the same to the information for adults. I did not want to be redundant and simply left it out. Lzuniga04 (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)