User talk:Adindi/sandbox
Dr. Weiner - Comments
[edit]- You have a lot of good information here! Once you have it properly organized, you will be well on your way.
- Edit in the original material. Don't add a new thing below it. Incorporate the material that is already there!
- Abstract should not have a header. It's just the part at the top.
- Link HEAVILY to other wikipedia pages. The first time you use a term, it should be linked.
- Every piece of information needs a citation. If you took all the info in a paragraph from one place you can just cite at the end of the paragraph, but nothing longer than a paragraph should be uncited.
- Sources need to be cited using wikipedia's citaton manager.
- Links to sources outside wikipedia should be formatted through wikipedia's links and given descriptive text, not just left as links.
- The abstract that is already present is more appropriate than what you did. Leave it and add as necessary.
- Don't break up your sections by rubric details unless that actually makes sense. Let it be clear and flow naturally, or break it up by clear, non-repetitive subheadings when appropriate. The rubric chunks are rarely good choices.
- Don't repeat the same information in different sections unless it really matches the focus.
- There is stuff in signs and symptoms that really doesn't belong there.
- When you use subheadings, use the wikipedia system to make them subheadings so they show up on the outline.
- This feels very disorganized. Information is repeated in multiple sections and is in places that it doesn't belong. The structure is hard to follow.
- You should be able to find images on wikimedia for some of the symptoms and pathophysiology stuff.
- Pathophysiology should be paragraph form and step through the details of what happens.
- The path theories need much more explanation.
- Don't use case studies in recent research when there are good recent medical studies! Case studies are a last resort if there is nothing better!
- Don't use primary sources outside the recent research section unless the information can't be found elsewhere.
Sweiner02 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Phys review
[edit]1.i really appreciate the way you did the section for signs & symptoms, especially the table you created/used to create a visual summary. 2.You really freaked me out for a second when I saw the references before the rest of the article. I almost thought nothing was written there. I think it messed up the rest of youre formatting because the end of each section as well has a citation at the bottom. 3.Possibly also due to formatting, you have 2 abstracts in your article. I would combine them 4. I think for the last sentences on the case studies, I would either omit them or reword them, as they appear more subjective than objective and would include an item from the studies conclusion/discussion instead. I would say the same for the highlights portion. 181kotj (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Hanna Saba
[edit]- I really like how informative your Pathophysiology of Freiberg Disease and Causes and Contributing Factors topics.
- I would try to reorganize your draft so there isn't two references and abstracts.
- I would make sure to have all your links under your references topic. I see you have a link in your Causes and Contributing Factors topic which should be placed under references
- Try to see if you can add at least one image to go with all the informative detail you provided.