User:Good2bheretoday/Neurotransmitter/Magggey Peer Review

I composed my peer reviews in the talk page of the draft section for neurotransmitter. Please refer there for my reviews. Thanks! Magggey November 30, 2021 11:50 AM

I completed the reviews earlier in the location noted above. Here they are copied for reference in case you couldn’t find them. Thank you! Magggey Dec 9, 2021 9:59 AM

“Looks like you have some interesting sources! I’m excited to review your article when you have some of it in! Magggey (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review 1: I like your definition of neurotransmitters. I think it would be good to include the glial cell content in that first section as well. The main thing I’m noticing is the need to put in the citations. I’m not sure what comes from what source. I’ll add some more suggestions in later! Magggey (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest linking in the common neurotransmitters you listed to their respective wikipedia pages.

I think the Life Cycle title totally works.

Within it, I would suggest:

Linking the stuff in “neurotransmitter include…”

Purine neurotransmitters, like ATP, are derived from nucleic…? I’m assuming you meant nucleic acids?

What figure did you add? I’m having trouble seeing that. Is it the example table? If so, I think that was a very valuable addition.

With the sentence you wrote you need to rewrite, I’d just be super careful if it’s copied and pasted in from a source, just because of the intellectual property stuff. But if it was already there and you just need to rewrite and cite it, that make sense.

The formatting of your sources is a little weird. Are the ones at the bottom the old ones?

In the life cycle section, is it just supposed to be an overview? I just noticed that there is a entitled “elimination of neurotransmitters” in the version of the article that is already published on wikipedia. I would make sure you address that somehow.

This concludes my first review. Magggey (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any new content to review. I would just make sure you go through and clean up the last little bit of your article, like the comments you made to yourself and us in parenthesis. (Things like where you ask for input, or say you need to rewrite something.)As I don't see new content, this will conclude my second review. I would just reiterate what I wrote the first time. Magggey (talk) 18:30, 6 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.)