User talk:Carina1205/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Tsotiffany (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
1StrangerSC (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hey. Great job on the article guys. I really like the way everything is so clearly labeled and every section is very easy to understand. |
|||
I thought you guys could expanded on the symptoms though. Also, I think the accounts of delusions part might need a little more information and it might require an additional referencing from Wikipedia. |
|||
[[User:1StrangerSC|1StrangerSC]] ([[User talk:1StrangerSC|talk]]) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Basically, the article is good so far. It will be better if the captions of the article is consistent, make the first letter capital for the captions. |
Basically, the article is good so far. It will be better if the captions of the article is consistent, make the first letter capital for the captions. |
||
Accounts of Delusion |
Accounts of Delusion |
||
| Line 8: | Line 13: | ||
Contradictory to 'delusion-as-defense' this account hold that Grandiose Delusions are the result of exaggerated emotions and are not caused by lower self-esteem.[10] |
Contradictory to 'delusion-as-defense' this account hold that Grandiose Delusions are the result of exaggerated emotions and are not caused by lower self-esteem.[10] |
||
User:Tsotiffany jul 30 2012 |
User:Tsotiffany jul 30 2012 |
||
I read the talk above and I agree with it as I was going to say the same thing. Accounts of Delusion has an "and" in the middle which looks a little weird. As a suggestion, use that "and" in all subsections to be consistent. |
|||
[[User:Guptakhy|Khyati Gupta ]] ([[User talk:Guptakhy|talk]]) 15:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Review== |
|||
The article is very to the point and well referenced. It's good that you guys included the PMIDs where ever possible. I don't think references are going to be an issue this time around, woo! I made a few minor edits. They were just typos. Not much to worry about. |
|||
Some stylistic suggests: |
|||
* Perhaps make the caption a little more simple. |
|||
* As Tiffany and Khyati has said above the "Accounts of Delusion" section looks a little bit awkward. Perhaps get rid of the third level header and restructure that section to become more of a paragraph. |
|||
* If you can find research on it, perhaps expand on MacArthur-Maudsley Assessment of Delusions Schedule (i.e. what is the process assessment, what is used for measurement, etc.) |
|||
Keep up the great work! [[User:R-Bot6|R-Bot6]] ([[User talk:R-Bot6|talk]]) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:40, 1 August 2012
Hey. Great job on the article guys. I really like the way everything is so clearly labeled and every section is very easy to understand. I thought you guys could expanded on the symptoms though. Also, I think the accounts of delusions part might need a little more information and it might require an additional referencing from Wikipedia.
1StrangerSC (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Basically, the article is good so far. It will be better if the captions of the article is consistent, make the first letter capital for the captions. Accounts of Delusion There are two accounts for getting grandiose delusions: [edit]Delusion-as-defense account Claim that Grandiose Delusions are the defence of the mind against lower self esteem and depression and [edit]Emotion-consistent account Contradictory to 'delusion-as-defense' this account hold that Grandiose Delusions are the result of exaggerated emotions and are not caused by lower self-esteem.[10] User:Tsotiffany jul 30 2012
I read the talk above and I agree with it as I was going to say the same thing. Accounts of Delusion has an "and" in the middle which looks a little weird. As a suggestion, use that "and" in all subsections to be consistent. Khyati Gupta (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Review
[edit]The article is very to the point and well referenced. It's good that you guys included the PMIDs where ever possible. I don't think references are going to be an issue this time around, woo! I made a few minor edits. They were just typos. Not much to worry about.
Some stylistic suggests:
- Perhaps make the caption a little more simple.
- As Tiffany and Khyati has said above the "Accounts of Delusion" section looks a little bit awkward. Perhaps get rid of the third level header and restructure that section to become more of a paragraph.
- If you can find research on it, perhaps expand on MacArthur-Maudsley Assessment of Delusions Schedule (i.e. what is the process assessment, what is used for measurement, etc.)
Keep up the great work! R-Bot6 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)