User talk:Smuq318/sandbox

--Michelleakinw2 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pathophysiology was very explanatory, and I believe that is crucial for some readers to understand the condition.
 * One of your sources states that it is an unreliable source, maybe take look at that.
 * As much as the page is explanatory, I think it is content heavy and sometimes readers do not want to read through it all, can it maybe be cut down a little bit? or do you believe that every information stated is crucial?
 * The research sections needs citation.

Rschubert112 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I really liked your abstract and diagnosis section as well as the entire Wiki Page. I liked how in your diagnosis you separated the differences between diagnosis of the types of Macrodontia
 * I would add more signs and symptoms if they are available. Also, I would make it into bullets instead of paragraphs just so it is easier for people to quickly read them
 * For the science heavy words you have, for example in your causes you named a bunch of genetic syndromes. I would make sure to link these diseases to their Wiki pages or another source for people to actually know what the diseases are.
 * I have a science background so I was able to understand most of it well, however, I would try to make it more in a way that lay people are able to understand or at least link specific scientific words for definitions.
 * I think overall the page needs more citations from what you wrote. Where did you find the information you are typing? I would make sure to cite that in the actual page and the sentence.

NoamaanF1201 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I really liked how your diagnosis section was structured and how you laid out the different types, providing explanations for each one.
 * I think overall there might be a bit too much content. The wiki page is very informative but it is a bit daunting just in how dense each paragraph is so I think you could benefit from turning some paragraphs into bulleted points (i.e the signs and symptoms section).
 * Again, overall I noticed a lot of scientific terms that probably would not understandable to a general audience, such as the different syndromes, which you could either define or hyperlink.
 * You could definitely use more citations. I am not sure if you were going to add more later because I did something similar for my rough draft where I just made notes as to where I would add them later, but some sections are missing citations, such as the prognosis.

--Sweiner02 (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This part is confusing: " at times these teeth could grow simultaneously, resulting in the formation of a very large tooth"
 * All sections need thorough, in-text citations.
 * Link any term that is important or uncommon to its own wikipedia article the first time it shows up.
 * Good stepping through of the effects of GH.
 * Especially cite the research section!
 * When you reuse a source, reuse it in the citation manager. Do not create a new source from the same item.
 * You have a lot of good information here, and it's well organized. You just need to work on clarity, citations and linking.