Draft talk:Acne mechanica
Abstract: The abstract was quite brief but did clearly outline key characteristics. I would however recommend combining the first paragraph above the abstract with the abstract.
Signs and Symptoms: The signs and symptoms were clear and concise. There was no variation listed in the signs and symptoms. I am slightly confused as to the difference between acne mechanica and regular acne.
Cause: The causes of acne mechanica were clearly stated. This section was easy to understand, and I would leave it as is.
Mechanism/Pathophysiology: The mechanism was not well explained. It was missing the physiological aspects and any pathways that are involved. For example, I would recommend explaining how the heat and irritation of rubbing affects the skin cells, which then triggers the build up of dirt/ oil, resulting in a papule/ pimple.
Diagnosis: The diagnosis process for acne mechanica was concise, yet to the point. However, I would add whether there are any types/ variations in acne mechanica, whether mild, moderate or severe.
I would also recommend adding a treatment plan section to the Wikipedia page. Bguillen1024 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe this was very well written. Also, a great topic to read about, with an ample amount of information to help understand the condition. It was clear and concise and was an easy read. I would however, suggest checking each section for some sentences containing small grammatical errors, such as commas, that are needed in the sentences. Ysamuel44 (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- The abstract and the first piece should be combined. Remove "abstract" header.
- All sections must be well cited.
- Must be heavily linked to other wikipedia pages.
- Needs some editing for clarity and grammar. If you're struggling with this, go to the writing center.
- Mechanism is weak. Connect to what actually happens.
- Missing several sections.
- There's a lot of good information here, but there's still a lot missing.