User talk:Stpatel137/sandbox
- Very well organized
- Try to use more citations or have at least one for each section
- Try to include more info from recent research studies
- Could use more hyperlinks
(Jgill224) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgill224 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm finding information on the mechanism. Don't neglect basic info about proliferation, etc. This has some good info: https://www.jscisociety.com/article.asp?issn=0974-5009;year=2020;volume=47;issue=1;spage=3;epage=7;aulast=Negi
- I'd like to see a lot more terms linked to their wiki pages the first time they are used.
- Needs citations for all subsections of diagnosis.
- Some of this reads more like it's written for a patient than a general reader. Be careful of that.
- Cite the epidemiology section.
- Missing research section.
- Your structure is good, and with a few exceptions, the article is well cited. There are some pieces that still need to be finished.
--Sweiner02 (talk) 03:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some terms did not have its own wikipedia page, so instead, I put the meaning of the word in parentheses.
--Stpatel137 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Great job including information in the abstract.
- Since there may be limited information, is it possible to condense the mechanism/pathophysiology and pathogenesis sections into one? The pathophysiology section would be describing the biological process of a condition becoming a disease, but that could be explained in the mechanism.
- For the prognosis section, are there any residual effects of having a COC? After having treatment, will they have full function of their jaw without difficulty? If so, it might be helpful to add that here.
- For the causes section, is there any information on how odontogenic epithelial remnants develop or become trapped in the bones to develop the cyst? Does anything place someone at a higher risk of the remnants developing?
--ChiDoc0517 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I explained the odontogenic epithelial remnants in the Mechanism/Pathophysio section.
--Stpatel137 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- The introduction is well written, and has lots of information on the disease. This is the most viewed section and would most likely help viewers understand more about the disease
- With the epidemiology, any information about how it was found and where it was found might be beneficial to the general public and would seem more efficient
- For the diagnosis, maybe just grouping the scans together and linking the scans would help users understand the exams that are needed
- The causes of the disease, maybe adding a little more information to that section since no mechanism or pathogenesis has little to know the information in that section
Haneefav1 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I did not group the scans together because they are two different types of imaging procedures for diagnostics of the diease, however, I did link the scans.
- As for the causes, I was able to find the mechanism and added the mechanism section.