User talk:Nealhp427/sandbox

This is Khine Mon Swe. I really like the overall presentation of this article. I think the mechanism part needs more information.205.178.44.142 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, everything looks great for the most part. The mechanisms needs a little more and you're missing recent research on your topic. Maybe go more into detail in the treatment section. Other than that, you do a great job explaining everything in a way for others to understand. -Courtney Bryant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocobry (talk • contribs) 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I like your abstract. It is clear and concise. I think just the point on epidemiology was not covered. You probably could go into more detail on the breakdown of the word itself. For the mechanism, you have a good start. Just use the rubric as reference for all the sections so you get all the points! The stages of nephrocalcinosis could be added to the diagnosis section. For symptoms, the rubric asks for the descriptions of each symptom so don’t forget that for the final draft because I almost did. The prevention and recent research of nephrocalcinosis is not mentioned. I think you have a great start for your final draft. MarcellaP13 (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

--Sweiner02 (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Abstract could use some cleaning up and ordering, but is a good overall summary.
 * Add wikipedia links to your original sections.
 * I like the detailed staging.
 * Diagnosis needs citations for later material.
 * Mechanism needs a lot more detail.
 * Missing recent research
 * Overall, there's a lot of good information here. For the sections that you do have, just work on cleaning up and citing. Obviously, some sections are mostly or entirely missing.