User talk:Tlavender5/sandbox

Great Job! Very thorough article, the only thing that I would suggest adding would be to link some of the more medically related terms since there seems to be very little of that early on in the article and quite a bit later on. If anything, I feel it should be the other way around as to keep the reader engaged, they can quickly look up the linked words since it would not be very likely than someone looking for general information to read all the way through the article.--Egeorge01 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and great work so far on this wiki article. However, I do have one question, is this article on Lymphoma, or specifically colon lymphoma. I was under the impression it was just the broad Lymphoma, but in the causes section, there's a sentence specifically about colon lymphoma and it threw me off. In terms of your abstract, i think it accomplishes addressing the hallmark features, main idea and identifies the subtypes. If anything, your abstract might be on the longer side, however it is very detailed and thorough. If there is an area where you can shift some of those details, I would but I don't think it's necessary. In terms of signs and symptoms, your information is clear and concise but with lymphoma i noticed there might be variation seen with affected individuals in terms of symptoms. The rubric asks to state why this might be seen. If possible, maybe add a sentence at the end addressing this question. Your cause section looks good, but I would add more detail here if possible. And I noticed you don't have a mechanism or pathophysiology section, which is fine so long as you address some of the mechanism behind lymphoma under your causes section. I know lymphoma can be vague and is a rather simple mechanism, but if you find more information I'd add it. Finally, I think your diagnosis section is very detailed, looks really good. I think once you are done with your edits you will have a great wiki article on your hand! Great work so far! --Ncinquino (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks great! I do see that while some of the information was already available, you did a great job of incorporating your own information. Your abstract looks great, although it is a little over 300 words in the rubric its stated it should be 300 words or less, I would try remove anything that may be repetitive or irrelevant. I also don’t see a clear mechanism or pathophysiology; I would try to move it to its own section so its clear. Otherwise the flow seems to be working and the visuals are very helpful! --Afigueroa16 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

--Sweiner02 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Risk factors and causes are not quite the same. Weak on causes.
 * what has recent research actually found? This does not actually discuss any research.
 * Missing mechanism section.
 * Right now, very little has changed from original article. Make sure you actually make enough updates to have made a significant improvement to the article.