User talk:ShieldsMU/sandbox

Feedback
Nice work expanding the myelinogenesis article. I have a few suggestions for how you could improve things.


 * I'm not sure if you intended to remove the image, File:FlechsigSaggital4.jpg, but if I'm curious why.


 * The article needs wikilinks. I added a few more. Wikilinks are valuable to readers, since they allow them to learn more about the topics discussed in an article. For example, most people won't know what some term means, they can click through and find out more. A lot of the people who read this article aren't going to know much about the topic. Adding links like these help integrate your article into the rest of Wikipedia, making it more useful to readers.


 * Your sourcing isn't very clear to me. Please use inline citations and make sure that every statement you add to the article is supported by a citation. You should also use citation templates for your sources. If you look at the top of the edit window (the place you type text after you hit 'edit') you should see the word 'Cite' on the toolbar. Click on that, selected appropriate template from the drop-down menu, and fill it in as best you can. Doing that creates a better formatted reference, and one that it easier to maintain in the long run. In addition, some of the sources you do cite in the article aren't listed in the reference section; for example, "Rodgers, Robinson, Miller", which is cited repeatedly in the "Clinical significance" section, isn't among your references. In addition, there are sources in your reference section (both Butt papers, Eilam et al.) which aren't cited in the article.


 * Your use of sources needs to be consistent with WP:MEDRS, the sourcing guideline for medical-related sources. Several of your sources are very old. Except for sources of historical information, you should stick to recent articles, preferably ones that are less than five years old. Anything older runs the risk of being out of date, as new discoveries are made. Myelinogenesis is a subject that is being actively studied - articles from 2000 are likely to be out of date, far less ones from the 1970s or 80s.

While you have done some nice work expanding this article, I would strongly recommend that you don't try to move this into the main article without fixing these problems. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)