User talk:Rk160/sandbox

wiki review
One thing you did good was that it was fairly easy to read.

One thing you could have improved on was there seemed to be a lack of information about your topic which i am assuming may be due to lack of information on this topic but if you can add anything else you definitely should. Another thing you can do to would be maybe add a picture or diagram, or graph or something to sort of add as much sustenance as you could. a final thing you could do is under research directions is you could provide the reader with a better understanding and idea of the direction that they could head in to get any insight on this condition or things similar to it. If your topic doesn't have much info on it then you could connect something that relates so that there is a better starting path Shadihasan11 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

review 1
One thing you did good was that it was fairly easy to read.

One thing you could have improved on was there seemed to be a lack of information about your topic which i am assuming may be due to lack of information on this topic but if you can add anything else you definitely should. Another thing you can do to would be maybe add a picture or diagram, or graph or something to sort of add as much sustenance as you could. a final thing you could do is under research directions is you could provide the reader with a better understanding and idea of the direction that they could head in to get any insight on this condition or things similar to it. If your topic doesn't have much info on it then you could connect something that relates so that there is a better starting path Shadihasan11 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately, I believe that I cannot add a picture since I believe that it will be hard to do due to copyright. Rk160 (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Weiner
Sweiner02 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Make sure you add citations and replace the places where the original text said "citation needed".
 * I know the abstract came from the original article, but it would benefit from a little fleshing out and making it clear and easy to read.
 * Needs more thorough citations. Nearly everything you say needs a citation. If you take a few sentences from one source, it's ok to cite once at the end of that chunk.
 * Don't just say that the symptoms are similar. List the symptoms.
 * Whenever you do need to use a medical term, reference any specific condition, body part, or treatment, link to the wikipedia article for it the first time you use it! In general, more links are better.
 * A lot more information and detail on the pathophysiology is available. Step through this in as much detail as possible, like it was a case study.
 * What would they be looking for in the diagnostic scans?
 * A little explanation of the surgeries would be helpful, but they definitely need links.
 * This needs some editing for grammar and clarity. I would encourage working with a friend or the writing center.
 * I was able to find a few recent research articles on this topic. There aren't many but you should address them. If you're having trouble finding sources, come talk to me!
 * There is some prevalence information out there that could be included under epidemiology.
 * You have a really good start and structure here. Most of it is approachable and lay accessible.

Review by Rawan
The article was really easy to read and very straightforward which is perfect for a wikipedia article on a medical condition. Some things I would recommend to improve the article would be possibly to find more resources to add on information on this or if there isn't anything available, maybe elaborate on some aspects or reiterate. Another thing is to explain more on research directions, maybe you can use current found research to explain how research is done and possible ways to improve research. Maybe even elaborating on why there is limited research available. Another aspect would potentially be talking more about the symptoms associated with the condition, maybe in the form of a list. Rawanabualjass (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Review by Kennedi
 * This is a great start! Your article is very easy to understand, and very easy to read. You have a great recipe for having a wonderful article.


 * I think it could be a good idea to cite a little more frequently just to ensure that there’s no suspicion for any plagiarism.
 * There’s an easy-fix grammar error under the Pathophysiology and Mechanisms section. The third sentence states “This is a gradually process…,” which should instead say “This is a gradual process…”
 * There’s a little bit of awkward wording in the Diagnosis section in the sentence “An MRI is also possible to be used to determine results, but the CT scan is generally used.” A potential way to word that could be “MRIs are another diagnostic tool for this condition, but the CT scan is more commonly used for diagnosis.”

Lillexa0316 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)