User talk:Seldon.kwafo/sandbox/Draft

Wikipedia Article Peer Review(By, Alexarae Rizzo):

To begin, I would like to say that the additions that you have made to the article have drastically improved its understandability and flow. Upon first glance I immediately noticed the addition of the headings which were successful in organizing the content presented in this portion of the article. I especially appreciated the addition of the diagnoses/treatment sections, as this was important content that was missing from the original. Additionally, you were able to accomplish adding a significant amount of content to the article as a whole which I thought was fantastic.

There were three things that I think may help improve your article as it stands now. First, I noticed that more citations are needed for each section. Novel content seems to appear in multiple places without sources to back up the information. In a few cases it seems that citations did not appear until the end of paragraphs. It may be useful to keep in mind that they are needed whenever a new topic is brought up. The citations that you have added also appear a little older, so if possible it may benefit your article to find more recent sources to support the content.

Second, I noticed that your draft only covered hyperthyroidism and was wondering if hypothyroidism was going to be covered. Hypothyroidism is mentioned in the original version of the article directly after hyperthyroidism is explained. I think it may be worth touching upon (time permitting, and depending on the goals you wish to accomplish with the article by the end of the course) because too little of the thyroid hormone may lead to behavioral changes as well.

Lastly, adding links to other Wikipedia articles may prove to be beneficial. This can save time and research efforts in the long run because rather than covering supplemental information yourself, you can take advantage of the content others have provided in other articles. This may allow you to focus more on your topic specifically rather than explaining some of the background information.

Your edits to the original article have added so much detail and clarity, keep up the good work!