User talk:Vneph/sandbox

Drcheech's peer review for Vneph's edits to "Congenital nephrotic syndrome"
1. What does the article do well? The lead paragraph was MUCH stronger, with a clear yet concise summary of all the important points of the topic. It is written in a manner that should be easily understood even by non-medical individuals. The restructured and more complete symptoms section benefits from the initial list being converted to a prose form. 2. What changes would you suggest? Addition of specific genetic causes of the disease is helpful. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Add more secondary sources! Looks like you are already on the way to improving this... 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I really like the way you were able to use non-medical terms without dumbing down the content. I would like to work to do the same in my article. Good job! --Drcheech (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer review for congenital nephrotic syndrome article
1. What does the article do well? '''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?''' 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?
 * Your proposed introduction sentences provide much more information and remain in an easy to understand format
 * Bulleted list item
 * For the "symptoms" section, consider keeping the same idea of the previous format with a bulleted list. Perhaps you are planning to keep the bullets and add the sentence you have written, which would be great! I think easy to ready high points are useful when someone is referencing Wikipedia and the bulleted list facilitates that
 * Remove the primary research, which it looks like you are already planning on doing
 * Update the references
 * Consider adding 2 tables: 1 for the different genetic mutations and 1 for the infections that cause congenital nephrotic syndrome
 * I need to add a section about prognosis

This will be a great contribution to Wikipedia! Hwoollen16 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer review for congenital nephrotic syndrome article
1. What does the article do well?

You've done a good job expanding what has already been established. The information presented is informative and does not appear to be forcing an opinion or agenda. You have linked relevant articles.

2. What changes would you suggest?

What you have thus far seems reliant on a small number of citations. I'd like to see more citations used to back up the information provided.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I feel that the lead section could use further expansion if there is more information available.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

Keeping the language straightforward so that it can be understood by people who are not experts or familiar with the material.

Good job! Tbeckwi (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Emma's peer edit notes
This is good! You're definitely improving the previous article with more organization, clarity, and flow. I also like that you've added specific mutations to the complications section, though with the addition of specific mutations to "causes" this might seem repetitive.

The article still seems a little spare and content could be expanded/elaborated. The changes for the symptoms section omit some of the symptoms (unless the changes listed are in addition to the previous list).

With your planned edits this article will improve. The most important change is to add citations and links, since there's a lot of info that needs to be backed up.

(for my own article- this reminded me to add relevant links, improve organization) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.parkins (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Response to Reviewers
Thank you to everyone who reviewed my article. I appreciate your comments and feedback. Thank you Drcheech-I really tried to make sure the article could be understood by non-medical readers. I feel that there is not much information available to families of children with congenital nephrotic syndrome and I wanted this Wikipedia page to be a place where families could gain some information to aid conversations with their nephrologist. As the disease is rare, I also wanted the page to include some accurate medical information that general practitioners could rely on and use the sources provided to obtain more information. I am planning on adding the most common genetic and infectious causes in the “Cause” section of the article. Hwoollen, I love your idea of keeping this section in bullet form. A table would be very interesting idea! Also, I am looking to add more secondary sources. Unfortunately, there are very few review articles on this topic as it is a more recently discovered disease (many of the genetic causes were only discovered in the past 10 years), and most of the sources available are written by the same people. As such, I am trying to use ones that are most readily available to the public. Any ideas of how to improve this? Tbechwi, thanks for your comment about expanding the lead section. I thought about that, but I don’t want to repeat things that are said in the sections below. I plan is to finish updating the entire page and then going back and seeing if that section can be added to. Emma, I specifically deleted many of the symptoms that were previously listed because it was incorrect information (unfortunately much the article was outdated and contained false information). I tried to keep what was there and support it with sources. Unfortunately the previous authors did not site their sources and thus I cannot verify their information. Thanks again everyone! Vneph (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)