User talk:Typicalmarco/sandbox
Mariam Hanna
[edit]- I thought the article was easy to read and understand which is good for someone who is not familiar with the disorder.
- I think you should add more to the abstract. The abstract does not discuss everything you're talking about in the article.
- Expand on the pathophysiology section. It was too short and felt like there was details missing.
- Discuss more about the 2020 case by Dasgupta in the research directions section to further explain what the case was about and the outcome.
Mariamhanna21 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Dr. Weiner
[edit]- Start with what was already on the page! You were required to copy that in. Don’t replace it, add to it. It also gives you a starting place for citations! Unless there is something actively wrong with them, do NOT change the words that were already on the page. What they had was a better abstract!
- "We will review the clinical presentation, mechanisms, diagnostic approaches , and management strategies" - filler and not appropriate for wikipedia
- Make sure the language is approachable. Some of this uses unnecessary jargon or is excessively complicated.
- Leave out unnecessary words and prhases, especially weirdly emotional ones like unfortunately. There is a LOT of filler in this page.
- You have done a good job of linking to other wikipedia pages! There are a few more terms you probably want to add links to, but this is a very solid start!
- "triggers a multitude of events leading to muscle rigidity" doesn't say anything. Pathophys is where you lay this out in detail!
- Good use of existing pictures
- "This, however, is still being investigated." adds nothing
- The article you listed in research is a good start, but there's a LOT of recent research on this. Find other key articles to address. The one you did address, you didn't really say anything about. If you need help finding sources, come talk to me.
- Something weird is happening with your references section.
- Avoid using primary literature outside the research section unless nothing else is available. Wikipedia aims for mostly secondary sources. Especially case reports are NOT appropriate unless there is no other option.
- Abstract is missing history information.
- * Abstract should not have a header. It's just the part at the top.
Sweiner02 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Sreeksha Cheekatla
[edit]- Good Abstract could better with 1-2 interesting facts.
- Could benefit from more specific data on life expectancy or quality of life if available.
- Cause section could be improved by discussing any known risk factors and mentioning any gaps in knowledge.
- Could be better with specific demographic data and life expectancy if any data is available.
- Missing references.
Scheekatla (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Anjali Dindi
[edit]- Good overall reading experience (Language is easy to understand)
- Adding a brief mention of treatment approach would be ideal
- Could expand on potential risk factors
- Could benefit from more specific statistics if available
- There are a few small grammar mistakes (like "a decreased in chest wall function"), but overall, the writing makes sense.