User talk:Myda23.khan/sandbox

Comments- - See also section was their prior to editing, I think it is helpful for individuals who would like to see related links to fat necrosis.- Myda --Aatiqanoman5683 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the See also section should be eliminated or renamed.
 * Capitalize The signs and symptoms
 * Proof read (there are a few typos such as the spelling of severe in the causes section)
 * The prognosis section seems a bit informal i would remove the "not as scary as it sounds"
 * Overall you have a lot of great information and It is put together well. Every thing is clear and a visual has also been added which related perfectly to the information. So much so that it can be referenced within the page itself.

- There are only 2-3 section with bullet points and I believe it makes it easier for individuals who are viewing the page to understand the info. better-Myda - Causes and symptoms for this disease are clear and concise concepts, they do not need to be further explained -Myda --Michelleakinw2 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are too many bullet points.
 * Some things need to be further explained rather than just listed like the causes, even the symptoms.
 * Missing the research direction, is there any information out there? if none, maybe input that there :)
 * I loved your citation, it shows that you pulled your data and overall information from different sources.

- See also section was their prior to editing, I think it is helpful for individuals who would like to see related links to fat necrosis.- Myda - There are only 2-3 section with bullet points and I believe it makes it easier for individuals who are viewing the page to understand the info. better while also providing clear and concise data -Myda
 * If you are going to have a "see also" section, I would recommend putting it at the bottoms and not in the middle. It did seem a little extra to have this section, I am sure you could actually go without it.
 * There are a lot of bullet points and not enough paragraphs with simple explanations. I would take these bullet points and try to transform them into sentences so it doesn't feel like reading a bunch of lists.
 * I noticed a lot of grammatical errors throughout the page, (first section, prognosis, and epidemiology section). They are mostly phrasing issues or punctuation errors not spelling errors. Don't forget when to use your commas!


 * Overall the layout was the best thing about your page I liked the way it was easy to follow and overall I think the information was there but it could be presented a little better by getting rid of some of those lists and doing a little more explanation.

Emily Lindquist (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Smorgan1600 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Sam Morgan
 * I really appreciated how concise and straightforward your abstract was. Tells you exactly what it is but isn't too detailed.
 * More on the specifics of the mechanism may be helpful in figuring out what exactly happens in the body to cause this. How does lung entry lead to meningitis, etc?
 * small thing but in some places you capitalize and italicize Strep... and other places you don't
 * Diagnosis section is very choppy grammatically

-There are not any later signs I have edited this section so it no longer says "initial" -Myda -This is the only information presented, on the topic of fat necrosis and epidemiology - Myda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myda23.khan (talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC) --Sweiner02 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "these should appear smooth and round"?
 * I appreciate your many links to other pages.
 * If these are initial signs, are there later ones?
 * Needs info in research directions.
 * If you use the same source multiple times just reuse it within the citation manager. It should not have multiple numbers for the same source.
 * Epidemiology is a little confusing.
 * " is not as scary as it may sound" is an opinion statement.
 * Check for grammar and spelling issues.
 * Mechanism would benefit from being a little more explicit and stepping all the way through. Don't forget to include possible pancreas involvement.