User talk:Ssheth01/sandbox

Your wiki page is very informative. I like that you have external links to some of the ideas. It follows the guidelines for style and is easy to read I think you should elaborate on the recent research a little more like mainly the results and how they relate to your disease choice For your treatment and prognosis, I feel this is very informative but I had to look up a few terms I really like the format and I see in your content box that you plan to add a lot of more information ; this is great I know it is just a rough draft and overall younger on the right track and your topic is very interesting.

Samantha Marshall JenkinsSam20151931 (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sam20151931

Check the first sentence, the comma seems wrong to me. I think you would benefit from including a link on the term "macroadenomas," also on the subject of links, why do you have one to your own page in the history subsection? Your prose and grammar are generally very good except for the background section, based on what I read in the rest of this page I think you are a much better writer than that section reflects. I would go back over and edit a lot of it, it just does not flow as well as it could. Also you should fuse that entire section into the abstract at the top of the page, particularly the alternative names would be better utilized if added to the opening line. There appears to be a contradiction in the risk factors subsection, how is it possible for younger people to have had more time for the disease to present than an older person? Also your use of the word "patients" conflicts with the style guide, see "Writing for the wrong audience." Also the subsections Stages/Progression, Life Expectancy, Long Term Complications, and Holistic Care have no information in them, if its simply a matter of the information required for those is not out there, I think you'd be better off deleting those sub-headers than leaving them blank. All that aside, I actually really liked your article. I had never heard of Nelson's syndrome before reading this and now after reading this I feel like I have a basic and functional understanding of what is going on and why. Your prose is generally very good, your language choices clear, and information informative.

Ricov53 (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweiner02 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't use subheadings unless they add something. I would definitely leave them out of your abstract.
 * You don't need a background section. You can just incorporate this into your abstract.
 * I would like to see a little more source diversity. You're relying very heavily on a couple sources.
 * I feel like you're missing a solid statement of what this disease is and what happens in it, especially in the mechanisms section.
 * Unless it's something that people would expect to be true, you don't need to talk about information that isn't there, or differences that aren't present (like differences between races).
 * You have a lot of great information here. Just make sure it flows and is easy to read and access.
 * This could use some more links in a bunch of places.
 * Good summary of recent research!
 * Make sure to do some careful copyediting. Get help if you need it.