User talk:Rpatel76/sandbox

For your recent research I advise you to expound on what some of those research articles focused on as it is easier for someone to know what it is about instead of opening the article. I like the way you used References as it makes it easier for someone reading your article to go back to the original source of the facts. -Atish Shah

Taneisha Griggs- Abstract: Good job at giving a concise summary, key features, definition and epidemiology. Symptoms: Great job on this section! You did well at describing all the possible symptoms. The only thing I suggest is make subheadings for each symptom. Diagnosis: List the types of molecular genetic tests that are used and reasons behind diagnosis (list standard values for diagnosing 3-M syndrome for tests). Mechanism: Make subheadings for each gene that you explain within this section. Treatment and Prognosis: Good job at providing information on professionals that treat this condition, surgeries and therapies. I suggest just make a subheading for prognosis. Recent Research: The sources and links shared are good. I only recommend a short summary for each link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGriggs2 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

--Cfau47 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

peer review: charles fausto

Thanks for doing a great job on your rough draft Richa! I can see the efforts seeing every single section has some work done and what not. I understand we are still drafting and revising so I am sure you will be able to fill in the gaps as you continue the grind. The one recommendation I have for you is that I would reread every section before the final day to make sure the punctuation and grammar are clean (style elements). Good luck with the rest of the research!

Everything is looking good so far just continue to add more information. I would add actual recent research in with a good description and you need more sources as well. Bmisch96 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)bmisch96

You've got a great start! I think that short summaries of the recent research would be helpful as would linking some of the symptoms to other wiki pages that go into more depth about it. -rebecca murphy

Sweiner02 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The abstract currently on the main page is more informative. Don't be afraid to use it or parts of it.
 * Needs links and citations throughout.
 * If mental development is unaffected, leave it out.
 * Mechanism is not in lay language. Link, explain, or avoid difficult terms.
 * Recent research should be summaries of important results, not lists of articles. Just cite like normal.
 * there's a lot of great information here! Work on formatting, citation and links as well as language issues.