User talk:Pfletch/sandbox

Issues
This is not useable as is.
 * Please adjust the sections per WP:MEDMOS
 * Please put all the citations inline and formatted correctly (see note below)
 * The sourcing is not OK, per WP:MEDRS. Please don't use primary sources.  The following would all be fine:
 * here is a pubmed search for reviews. (there is only one).
 * page at NIH rare disease site
 * the Orphanet page
 * there are some textbooks in a google books search.

Quick note, that there is a very easy and fast way to do citations, which often also provides a link that allows readers to more easily find the source being cited.
 * formatting citations:

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite journal", you can fill in the "doi" or the "PMID" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing will auto-fill. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
 * (ref) (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and websites, as well as journal articles, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest. The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time.

The PMID parameter is the one we care about the most.

One thing the autofill doesn't do, is add the PMC field if it is there (PMC is a link to a free fulltext version of the article). you can add that after you insert the citation, or -- while you have the "cite journal" template open --  you can click the "show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom,  and you will see the PMC field on the right, near the bottom. If you add the PMC number there that will be included, like this (again I have changed the ref tags):
 * (ref) (/ref)

The autofill also doesn't add the URL if there is a free fulltext that is not in PMC. You can add that manually too, after you autofill with PMID

That's enough for now. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your article draft.
 * There are errors in your references - they are indicated by the red text in the refs. Please follow the instructions in the "help" note after each error message.
 * There's important information on the existing Madras motor neuron disease article like the Infobox medical condition (new). As you update that article, make sure that existing information is preserved. (On the other hand, please removed the stub templates once the page is long enough to no longer be a stub.)
 * In addition, please make sure you've addressed the issues that Jytdog raised in the section above. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

=Secondary versus primary sources= I looked over your references. Numbers 1 and 3 are just case studies and shouldn't be used in your inline citations. Number 2 is good. For number 4, it appears as a meta-analysis of many cases from other doctors. My understanding is that this would be ok to use. I am not sure about number 5. With such a rare disease you may only be getting info from a single secondary source. If that turns out to be the case, do your citations from that but you could put the primary sources as additional reading at the bottom. If you have not already done it, I highly recommend you visit one of the librarians to help you in finding secondary sources. Remember, in pubmed, you can go beyond searching for Madras Motor Neuron disease. You may find some good secondary sources if you just search for motor neuron disease. A general article on motor neuron disease that has a section on MMND would be a great addition. MMBiology (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)