User talk:Kvalentin1/sandbox

• This is well organized, and you have a lot of really great information on here. There are some things you can do to increase approachability and clarity, but this is coming along nicely overall.
• Try linking more to other wikpedia articles, especially in the intro/abstract
• You could really use a clear definition in the intro/abstract section
• In mechanisms you use a lot a bio jargon. It's great that you're linking to it, but if you could either use less jargon or define more of it in the article, it would be clearer for lay-readers
• The symptoms section feels like you divided things up a little arbitrarily. Why did you use major and minor headings? What do you mean by them?
• Your references are not showing up properly. Did you remove your reference section? Check other pages to see how they're set up
• Avoid quoting, if at all possible
• It would be nice to see more recent research, if there is any, even if you need to go back a little further.

Sweiner02 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Really good organization and style, clear and concise mechanism, diagnosis and prognosis, most of information I want to know has been listed such as the standard in assay for diagnosis.
• In the symptoms, I want to know which one is the most dangerous and their behind mechanisms.
• I want to know more recent research progress of ELP.

Starryheaven1988 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

- I like the overall article, very easy to read and informative. I liked the organization as well. - I really liked the Mechanism section! Very nice and clear details about the disease progression. - I am not sure I understood what the major and minor symptoms represent. Chest pain would not be considered a minor symptom, except if you mean it is not sever or it does not happen very often. If you would explain how these major and minor symptoms are divided, it would look better in my opinion. I don't see a need for classification subtypes (major and minor), except if they are actually considered that way. - Just a note on reference, I could not see the reference at the bottom. We will try to work this out :) Mdgeorge85 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC) comment added by Mdgeorge85 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

-The article is very informative and clear -I did not see the reference section, I think you need to add the reference section by typing ==Reference== and right below the reference you can type reflist with two brackets before and after. I think you will be able to see all you sources displayed at the reference section.Mohammed Tofa (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)