User talk:NganDo2161/sandbox

There is absolutely nothing cited your entire article about where any of your findings came from. Xtina383 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

I would also link the words you used in the abstract, like dysplasia, chondrodysplasias, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtina383 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Research[edit]

You did not include any recent research on the disorder or if there is lack of. Xtina383 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You definitely need to cite cite cite the sources! All of the in text citations to links of other wikipedia pages are missing and there are no sources of where any of your information came from. Wikipedia is big on references and stating where the information came from (as is Dr. Weiner and almost everyone else), HAVE to make sure there is no plagiarism. I understand it's a rough draft, but as you add more information, sources should be cited as you're moving along. I think instead of heading the first section "abstract" it should say the disease name, most people when looking stuff up online want to see the disease. I think your abstract is good, maybe needs a little more, maybe don't do the subheadings so large for the history and alternative names. I think your mechanism section looks pretty good (besides the links to other webpages). I would add more about the mechanism (but if it's not available, disregard that comment). I really like how the symptoms are listed out, just add links to other pages so if people wanted to know more information about a respiratory tract infection of myopia they can have easy access to it. I like how you identified that the symptoms are chronic. I really liked the diagnostic techniques and how you stated what each test specifically did. I just would more links and I can't stress plagiarism and seeing where these things came from. Especially because Wikipedia makes it easy, it makes the citations for you if you just enter the website and you can site the same source multiple times. You're missing other sections like causes. I know its mentioned many times about the gene mutation, but I think there should be a tab for it and maybe list other possible causes? You're also missing treatments which is also important when people are looking up diseases. I think when I look up diseases online, I first look for symptoms, then causes, and finally treatments. Lately I have even been looking at recent research (who would have thought grad school would make me look at scientific research articles for medical advice!!!)

Overall, I think you did a good job with the sections you have complete. The biggest things I would change is the sources and add into the other headings. I think it could maybe be broken down more for other non-scientific people to understand. The headings need to be adjusted and a few other style errors, which I believe is partly computer coding. Like usually the contents box is below the abstract but yours is above (so is mine which I'm still trying to figure out how to move it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstatkus (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Tstatkus (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the heading. The full page will add its own, and this just makes your formatting confusing.
Only use subheadings if they add something. I would especially leave them out of the abstract.
History and alternate names can just be part of the abstract.
If there isn't anything to say about something (like prevention) than just leave it out.
Nice description of symptoms.
Everything needs citations and links to other pages!
Missing treatment and recent research.

Sweiner02 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]