User:Bizzers03/Glycine receptor/Kyguy22 Peer Review

I enjoy what you have included in your draft of adding on to the Glycine article. It simple and every to comprehend which makes it much easier on the reader. I am really impressed with how you included Ohm’s Law into the article. I also believe that differentiating between adults and embryos is important and fascinating. I really enjoyed the new information.

I do not know if you have any plans with the lead section. However, being a reader. I found the third paragraph in the lead section to be a bit hard to comprehend and confusing. I had to read that paragraph a couple of times and I am not sure if I still understand it well. I would maybe look into simplifying it, or rewording it to make it more manageable for the readers. One other nick picky thing I would maybe include is giving a couple word description of NKCC1 is. Such as “NKCC1, a cotransporter protein”, or include the full name. For example, “Na-K-Cl cotransporter (NKCC)”. In some way if you can be a little bit more descriptive there, it will help the reader to follow along better.

I enjoyed what you are including. Thank you for the work you are doing and your future contribution to this article.

-I wasn't planning on changing any of the lead section, but I will definitely look into it. And thanks for the suggestion of explaining what the NKCC1 is. I will definitely do that!! Bizzers03 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at your sandbox draft again. It is looking well. I am not sure if you are going to expand on section of "structure". If you then maybe look into giving some information on the primary, secondary and tertiary structures on the different units. You could talk about which subunit binds to the agonist/antagonist. You could look into which subunit is responsible for the charge selectivity. Just a few more thoughts. No need to have to do anything I suggest. Kyguy22 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)