User talk:RLSbiology

Welcome!
Hello, RLSbiology, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi
Hi RLSbiology,

I reverted your edit on the MS page. My reasons for doing so on the MS talk page. I could tell you put a lot of effort towards that and look forward to your future edits. If you more rigorously cite your information, it'll be more likely to stick on the page. If you have any questions that I can answer, feel free to ask and I'll try my best to answer them.

Thanks,

Lukelahood (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Lukelahood,

Thank you for your suggestions. I have incorporated some of your feedback points into my sandbox draft of my article revision. Feel free to take a look at the revisions I have made and make more suggestions so that I can make a more suitable post and edit to the article.

Best,

RLSbiology


 * I'll tentatively plan on looking at it tomorrow.
 * Lukelahood (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ,

I see that you incorporated my feedback into your new revision. This is a definite improvement, and I appreciate you taking my advice. My feedback was not comprehensive, and I believe additional work is still needed before incorporation.
 * See WP:MEDSECTIONS for what content is most appropriate for what sections. Per that, risk factors best belong somewhere other than the epidemiology section (unless geographic distribution, race, ethnicity, sex, etc is the risk factor). So although I pointed out the incorrect grammar for the disease names, really those diseases as risk factors probably best belong elsewhere (in my opinion).
 * You still have insufficient citations. For example "In 2019, there have been nearly one million reported cases of MS in the United States alone." This statistic is the perfect example of something needing citation, as it specifies a number that could have only been determined through an organized and publishable study. The citation at the end of the paragraph simply points to https://www.nationalmssociety.org/, which isn't an article but moreso a landing page for a website.
 * "In the most recent prevalence studies conducted (2019)" I see you incorporated the year into the text, in response to my feedback, but still the text preceding it will become outdated once a new prevalence study comes out (as in, it won't be the most recent study anymore).
 * There are still multiple examples of imprecise text. Just listing one example here: "it is noted that in pediatric cases of MS" The words "it is noted" doesn't really help the reader. If the fact is well established, you could just cut those words out. If it has only been shown in a single study, then you'd put "In a single study." But to say it is noted is redundant because everything on wikipedia is noted somewhere, otherwise it wouldn't be on wikipedia.
 * "Stemming from both genetic and environmental factors alike, MS is the most common autoimmune disorder of the central nervous system" Probably don't need the words "stemming from both genetic and environmental factors alike" because this is well addressed in the 'Cause' section.
 * And there are more things that need addressed, but I don't want to elaborate. The Multiple Sclerosis Wikipedia page used to be a featured article, so it is already developed to a point at which further improvement is hard, harder than less popular articles that have yet to be developed.