User talk:Wellschitt/sandbox

Hi Wellschitt, here is my peer review for the edits you will be making to the neurodegeneration Wikipedia article:


 * "onset of Multiple Sclerosis and the presence of EPV within patients" - I think you meant EBV, not EPV
 * I assume you will be adding in each source using your own language and won't have to directly quote from sources
 * A source needs to be added to the "Genetic interactions, link to HLA-DR2 and higher prevalence in females" statement
 * You could explain why vitamin D deficiency explains the difference in prevalence, and cite the source.
 * make it clear why this disorder should be under neurodegeneration, it seems like you should be editing the MS page instead of the neurodegeneration article. Also, be aware of the size allotted to each specific disorder in the neurodegeneration article so that the MS section you add is around the same size.

Following the WikiED rubric:

LEAD - As mentioned above, I would make clear in the introduction statement of MS as to why you are including it in the Neurodegeneration article. - Fair

ARTICLE - There is plenty of information for the MS section you will add, but I am not sure about the organization of that paragraph yet. - Fair

REFERENCES - Besides the missing sources I noted above, I believe every statement is accounted for. - Good

EXISTING ARTICLE - The section you chose to edit/add was a great addition to the article, as MS was not mentioned before. I am curious to see if you will make any minor edits to the article as well, or in it will just be the MS section. - Good

NEW ARTICLE - you have not published any edits to the article yet, so this section of the review is pending. -Poor

I can't wait to see the edits you make! Smazuera (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

To: Wellschitt

From: Ncneurowiki

It was surprising to see that neurodegeneration was only rated a C-class seeing that neurodegeneration impacts such a large portion of our society. The author has clearly done research on this topic and is well equipped to finish their edits. The next step in finishing this project will be to refine the information they have found, to ensure that the MS section does not overpower the other specific disorders sections. This will require the author to edit the placement of the paragraphs and decide which information is the most vital. Originally, I thought it would be important for the author to define every point in the sandbox (for example EPV), however, since the section will already be long, the author can choose to link the pages for these definitions.

Lead: The definition of MS is clear and concise, however, it is unclear what EPV is.

Structure: The article still needs to be structured and organized in a more cohesive manner.

Balance: As mentioned above, the information will need to be shortened to ensure this section is a similar length as the other disorders.

Neutral: The author was able to keep their tone unbiased and professional.

Reliable sources: The sources used seem reputable and well formatted.