View source for Talk:Microbial Cardiac Infections

General: 
<br>-	Maybe number the figures so you can refer to them in the text
<br>-	Some minor grammatical errors
<br>-	I don’t think you used the citation code correctly, because they should be superscript and has a numbered list in the reference section. Plus, I was expecting to see most citations from peer-reviewed articles instead of wikipedia. 
<br>-       Overall I think you did a thorough research on this topic and present it to us in the way that is easy to understand. 
<br>“Intro and Heart Overview”
<br>-	References for all these examples and claim?
<br>-	“Infective Endocarditis”
<br>-	“Blood will usually flow smoothly past the inner linings of the heart, but many things can cause attachment of microbes causing endocarditis.” - Awkward, maybe reword this sentence
<br>-	“However, in drug users who are injecting directly into their veins, ultimately ending up in the vena cava, will affect the right side of their heart and in term the tricuspid valve and will likely be cause by S. aureus” – first time mention here, so should write full name, also italicize the species name. Plus, be [caused] by <i>S. aureus</i>
<br>“Diagnosis”
<br>-	Figure showing how well different interpreters agreed on different aspects of echocardiography does not have very high resolution, hard to read
<br>“Causes”
<br>-	The links on the figure for Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas are not functioning
<br>“Conclusion”
<br>-	A little bit on the short side, maybe consider to make it longer and thorough, or could point out some future studies?
-Jiayu Chen


Hi Santi!
I love the images and video, and the information is pretty great. Just a couple of general notes, I think. First, I'd consider citing things using <r(e)f name="x">[websiteurl citation]</r(e)f> (without parentheses around the e's) with subsequent refs to the same article being cited as <r(e)f name="x"></r(e)f>. That'll organize all of your references for you at the bottom of the page, number them individually, and make it so that everything matches up in a cohesive manner. On the subject of citations, consider finding a few more sources? 13 feels somewhat on the slim side... and I know a couple places could do with some citations. You might know most of this offhand, but the rest of the world doesn't know you know. In terms of formatting, it's my opinion that subheaders like "Introduction" and "Conclusion" aren't necessary. The concluding statement can fit into another subheader, and you can format the introductory paragraph so that it goes above the table of contents with your image. That way it'll look less interrupted and more professional. That's a personal opinion though so you can keep it as is if that makes you comfortable. Statements which tell the reader "where we're going" are kinda frothy and don't do much; it's what the subheader is for. I'd cut those out completely. Because it's a wiki text, it should read in a very pithy statement-driven style. I hope this is useful! Feel free to get in touch if something's unclear. --Richard Dennis