User talk:Ekouimelis/sandbox

Do not include the name of the disease as its own heading. That will be provided when you transfer to the main page.
Abstract does not get a heading
I know you only recently switched to this specific lymphoma, but your abstract still refers to the general category. It should focus on this one first.
What is marginal zone? Define terms that are key to your topic and link all others.
Needs more citation in some places, like your list of subtypes.
Mechanism is very short, simple and vague. Make sure you give as much information as we have.
The list of symptoms is nicely arranged and very clear.
Diagnosis need explanation of how this is done and how these tests are used. A list is not enough. Right now it feels very disorganized. This is not helpful for someone who wants to know what to expect and what this process looks like.
If there's no way to prevent it, don't talk about that. It's ok to change headings to things that make more sense for what you're looking at. Maybe this section should be risk factors? Most of these aren't things you can avoid!
General prognosis factors: I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Be clear. Lists without context are rarely helpful.
Summarize the research in a more general way. Don't isolate studies as headings. Talk about what has been done recently and what has been found. This is not written in lay language! Most of the rest of your article has good use of lay language but it completely disappears here.
Good and consistent citing.

--Sweiner02 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract is pretty well explained, I will however add more description as to what the syndrome affects. You have done quiet an extensive research, and very good citing the articles. I will like to suggest to expand on each of the symptoms as how they are manifested; and if any of them have secondary effects of the body. I am able to observe that you are still expanding on treatment plans and prognosis. The overall article is very clear and easily read by a non-since major. You might also want to expand on the recent literature for your syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.29 (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is wiki article is off to a great start I would suggest having more description on each of the bulleting points on the symptoms. I will also like to see more description on the mechanism There is a lot of recent research your topic I found through up-to-date website. Overall great job on the abstract and with the citations. It is off to a great start. (reviewer Erica Valdez) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.175.17.29 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the wiki article is fantastic and contains plenty of information. All findings are current and within recent years. The abstract is precise and concise. The wiki rubric was followed and addressed. The only comment I can make is that wiki urges users to write for a broad audience instead of a scientific one and so if it can be watered down I think it would be perfect. -Glenn Lopez - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glopez03 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have the abstract as it's own subheading, it can stand alone by itself at the beginning. I think your article is off to a great start. I also think that your work is very detailed, but the lists can be a bit overwhelming to read. Some of the lists are so long that you may no longer know the subheading that it pertains to. Perhaps for each list you can also add the subheading. For instance, for diagnosis, you can list Diagnosis of Extranodal marginal zone B-cell NHL of MALT, that way the reader knows what they are reading. Also, maybe instead of everything being in list form, some things can be written as a paragraph? Overall you did an awesome job and I was able to learn a lot about your topic.

Darcelle D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddieudonne (talk • contribs) 09:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]