User talk:Nheo1/sandbox

Wajdey Nesheiwat

Abstract: Overall, very good! Gives me a clear picture of what I will be reading in the next few paragraphs. The sentence, “It is a very rare disease that affects between 1 to 9 people in 100,000, with only about 100 cases reported and female are more often affected than males, with ratio being 3:1[3]," seems too long, try to cut it down a bit.

Mechanism: Since this is a Wikipedia article and you explained everything very well, but perhaps simplify some of the wording such as “…contributes to excessive caloric intake and exacerbates…” to excessive weight gain or anything similar to that. Although unknown, I like how you attempted to explain the pathophysiology from other research articles.

Symptoms: Overall, very good presentation of the symptoms, but simplify the wording a bit more.

Diagnosis: Perhaps explain more about the differential diagnosis and the different grading? What kind of professional can one see to be diagnosed with this disease? Perhaps add lab values or other measures that help lead towards that specific diagnosis. Also cite “Biphotonoic absorptiometry” since the audience may not know what that is.

Causes and Prevention: I like how you presented the three possible causes to the disease. Is there anything that the CDC may recommend for this disease? Also, cite “Sjogren syndrome.”

Treatment and Prognosis: You excelled in this section! There is not much to correct here.

Recent Research: Maybe talk more about the two brothers with juvenile-onset generalized lipodystrophy. It seems like you mentioned it, but maybe talk about what had happened to them and the kinds of medical treatment they received. Otherwise, everything else looks great!

- Good job on your abstract, I can understand what you are saying without trouble it also gives me a preview of what I will be reading - Symptons was a little bit wordy, maybe consider using a list so it easier for the reader to know what you will being talking about and then elaborate on what you are saying - Treatment section was best section everything was included that is in the rubric - Maybe consider adding more images to help explain some complex processes better or just to make it more visually appealing - Overall really great start! - Charmila Sabbani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charms022 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you have a lot of great information in your article, great job! I think the abstract may be too long/detailed. Perhaps some of the information can be moved to other parts of the article? I think the abstract should be short and concise, just sharing a snapshot of what the article is about. Other than this suggestion, the outline captures everything we need on the rubric. Also, I think you did good job of linking terms to other wiki pages. Good job!

Darcelle D.

Sweiner02 (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * HIV- or drug-induced lipodystrophies is not discussed in this topic (see HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy) - Does not really add anything. Perhaps you should explain the difference, or dropr the sentence.
 * Abstract is a little scattered. Some information is repeated, some seems out of place. Try to make it easier to follow.
 * The mechanisms section is good and clear, but I'd like a little more explanation of how the non-idiopathic causes develop. You might find it easier if you put this section after causes.
 * Check for clarity and grammar issues, particularly in symptoms.
 * Otherwise symptoms is nice and connects pieces well.
 * You can't have "one research". Talk about what has been found, don't focus on the article.
 * There's plenty of non-case study research. Focus on research, not individual case reports.
 * You did a great job of linking throughout most of the article, but it disappears in recent research.