User talk:Rschubert112/sandbox

--Sweiner02 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead or abstract is rather long and broken up oddly. Consider moving some of it to sections and keeping the lead more manageable.
 * Some filler phrasing like "However, it is important to take note". Be clear and concise.
 * All your symptoms should really link to appropriate pages.
 * I appreciate how thoroughly cited most of this article is.
 * I would encourage you to take advantage of some of the relevant diagrams on wikimedia about myelin and similar concepts.
 * I really like how you've broken down the genetic causes using subheadings.
 * I know it's tricky to rephrase things with genes, but just using the same sentence structure as the source and replacing a few words and adding a few more is not good paraphrasing and may get your article flagged for potential plagiarism. Please be careful with that. I'm seeing it especially in the genes.
 * Some of your sentences could use some work on clarity and ease of comprehension. I would encourage you to have a friend or family member who does not have a science background read it over and see where they struggle.
 * This sentence "Further microscopic brain examination provides further neuropathology of LENAS" doesn't seem to belong in the pathology section.
 * There's a lot of good information here, but I think, in general, it needs some editing for clarity, and to make sure that you have sufficiently summarized and not come too close to the original source material.

Rschubert112 (talk)
 * I did my best to rephrase a lot of the page as well as focused a lot on the genetics part.
 * I further edited for clarity and did my best to make it more understandable to those with and without a scientific background
 * I did take advantage of the wikimedia with relevant diagrams
 * Got rid of the sentence "further microscopic brain examination provides further neuropathology of LENAS"
 * Linked all symptoms to appropriate pages
 * Had both parents and friends read through my rough draft to let me know areas they did not understand, as they are all non science background readers. This let me wind down what I needed to be more clear and concise about as well.
 * Got rid of filler phrasing that you mentioned as well as any other ones to be more clear and concise.

NoamaanF1201 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a great number of citations and all of your work is very thorough. You covered every topic at length and it is extremely informative.
 * The abstract could be slightly shorter. It could help to remove the sentence talking about the genetic etiology of the disease since you discuss causes and dedicate a subheading to the genetics of it.
 * Just to make it look a bit neater, you could remove the sub-bullets in the symptoms section and just make them individual bullet points. It gets especially cluttery the "general later symptoms" where you have several sub-bullet points.
 * Although the article is very informative, I did notice that I was only able to understand certain things because I have a science background. To make it more accessible to a general audience, you could simplify some sentences to be easier to read.

Rschubert112 (talk)
 * Shortened abstract but did still keep one sentence about the genetics just to have that as it was an important finding. Did not use recommendation to dedicate a subheading to genetics in abstract as I wrote it more in depth in my causes section
 * Decreased the clutter in my signs and symptoms section and cleaned up the sub-bullets a bit
 * I simplified sentences and made it easier to read for those who also do not have a science background.

Hmartin55 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good job with the citations-- your list is long which shows you used multiple sources to pull your information from.
 * Make sure to sufficiently summarize the work you have there. Too many words and people can get "lost in the sauce".
 * It was informative but it was hard to follow sometimes-- I think it just might be too wordy!
 * I can tell you took your time and put in a lot of effort-- so good job!

Rschubert112 (talk)
 * Decreased amount of words and did my best to sufficiently summarize the work I have
 * Tried to make it easier to follow and cleaned it up so it wasn't too wordy

Myda Khan
 * This wiki article is extremely well done and thorough
 * I do believe their may be some sub section that are not needed such as two subsection for treatment
 * Double check spelling and grammar
 * Citations, table, and images were a great addition to the information presented

Rschubert112 (talk)
 * I kept my sub sections for treatment only because I wanted to separate "maintenance" to be medication options or any other therapeutic options in that section with "surveillance" to be more about watching the progression of the disease, follow up appointments, etc.
 * I did triple check spelling and grammar as I re read through it multiple times.