User talk:Sunanadhi0630/sandbox

Hi! Very good job! It looks like a complete Wikipedia article and I feel like I learned a lot! The main thing I noticed that was missing was the wikipedia in text links (I know is time consuming but as an avid wikipedia searcher, those links are VITAL). I think it's a coding issue but usually the contents box is underneath the abstract. I also really like the addition of a photo, you'll have to help me with that!!

I think the abstract hit almost all of the topics, if information isn't available I think that's okay. Just add in citations and in text links. And when I went to see the source in the abstract with the number 1, it didn't come up as a link, so I had to scroll to the bottom to see the paper. I'm not sure if that is an issue you can particularly fix though. I think your mechanism is pretty detailed since it is a genetic mutation. Can you maybe talk more about the protein and are there stages? I would assume no but I didn't do as much research as you did. Other than that I think its okay but if you find more information, that wouldn't hurt. (the number one in this paragraph worked correctly though) The symptoms section looks nice and long! Maybe add some more wikipedia links. I like how you said the symptoms were chronic in the beginning. Are there no acute symptoms? I love that the diagnosis is in depth and detailed. Again this section needs a few sources and links. I like how each paragraph is a different topic. I like how the different diagnostic criteria is separated by age, because that seems to be important to this specific disease. Causes and Prevention section looks really good. In the treatment section I think education should also be bulleted? It looks strange that the one above it and below it are in a bulleted context but education isn't. I like how you separated regular treatments and lifestyle changes from the medicinal treatments. I think that you need to add sites and links so I can go look up the medications. I have a weird obsession with doing that on other wikipedia pages, and I don't think I'm alone on that! I like how you added a prognosis. I like that the relation to other diseases is its own heading and group. I think because yours is unique, that that was a good additions. Finally recent research, I think you can add more and make sure the grammatical errors are fixed. Phenotypic should be capitalized and I don't know what the "d" after 100-120 stands for, assuming d? A layperson wouldn't know.

Overall, I think you did a good job and it looks like a complete Wikipedia article and I learned so much about a new disease! I think any person who looked at this could clearly understand it! Way to go!! (just don't forget links!) Tstatkus (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweiner02 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove the heading. Wikipedia will add this for you on the final page, and it messes up your formatting.
 * Only use subheadings where they add something. I would definitely leave them out of the abstract.
 * Mechanism: What do we know about how this gene causes this condition?
 * Link all unfamiliar terms.
 * Nice clear symptom list.
 * Cite! You have few citations and use them sparsely.
 * I like the clear diagnostic criteria.
 * Recent research needs fleshing out and explanation.