User talk:Prachipatel7/sandbox

You've done an excellent job so far! The only things I would change would be to define cardiomyopathy first in the abstract before going on and describing the types. I would also watch for a little of the redundancy in the mechanism and classification portions of the article since it sounds much like a repeat of the abstract at the very beginning. These aren't terrible, but if you can find a way to reword them, that would be awesome. And finally, if you can link some of the more scientific words in the article so that readers can learn more in-depth information about the topic if they have little knowledge I think it would be very helpful. Otherwise, keep killing it!--Egeorge01 (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an excellent rough draft and looks close to a great final product. I would recommend elaborating more on the prognosis. I see you mentioned the mortality rate is unknown and that there could be a positive outlook. Perhaps separate it into a new paragraph for simplicity. I like the separation of the different types of treatments (devices, surgical, medication). It breaks each section down nicely and is well organized. I know it is not mentioned in the rubric but consider adding a current research section to really bring it home. Otherwise I agree, keep killing it. --Hganev (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that you have done an excellent job so far and I don't have much to say. I agree with Hganev and think some more information could be put into the prognosis but overall I like how you have information separated. You've been very detailed throughout and I don't see much more needing to be fixed. Great job! Tlavender5, November 15, 2019, 5:14pm Tlavender5 (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Abstract does not need a header.
 * I like your additions to the abstract.
 * Missing recent research and epidemiology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweiner02 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)