User talk:Ppatel91/sandbox

You've packed a lot into the abstract. Think about what the key points really are and how you can simplify.
I caught a few spelling errors, like effected. Do some checking for those.
Make sure to link! There are lots of terms here to link.
Think carefully about when you really need to use uncommon words. Intertriginous could easily be described instea, for example. Make it lay accessible. Do you have a family member or friend who is not a science person who could read it over for you?
Your recent research summaries are great, but they're really more detail on each study than is needed for a wikipedia page. Could you summarize the key findings of each in a couple sentences? I'd also like to see you go back more than one year and find a few more studies.
Mechanism: I'd like more here than the bacterium. Most of the rest of this isn't really mechanism. How does the bacterium cause this? What makes it more common in the populations that have it? What about the locations makes them good for this infection?
Well-cited.

--Sweiner02 (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job on the rough draft, I can see the effort to attempt each section. The Recent Research and Treatment sections are very well - written. For the mechanism section I would suggest adding more content. Maybe go into more detail about the bacteria and its role in this condition. I would also suggest to make the abstract more concise, since it's supposed to be a summary and go into more detail of those points in the other sections of the article. - Richa Patel