User:PaladinSandalphon/sandbox

Peer Review Responses
Demxr2 said that they had a difficult time determining what was written by us and what was copied from the article. I don't believe either of us copied anything from the original article that that the majority of the work in the sandbox was possible original contributions. I didn't write anything on structure, but I do think that it's a good idea to add more information on what Q2 and Q3 crosslinks are since I don't even know what they mean since I didn't add those sections (and thus did not do any research on them). I am very glad that they found our writing very clear and concise and was accurate to someone who is studying ceramics in general.

I strongly agree with Savkisomma's suggestions on better organizing our additions when it comes to separating each section as currently the sandbox we're working in is pretty disorganized. My partner and I had briefly discussed organization, but I believe it was for the arrangement of sections in the article itself. Definitely should assign a 'section' to each of our additions so we know where they go in the final article. I also agree that the original article was sorely lacking in history and other significant topics, which is why we both made it a top priority to elaborate on bioglass' history (and for me, its medical uses).

Crook47 made a very good point about elaborating more on the history section about how bioglass was refined from its original composition to what we use today, or how the raw materials are refined for medical usage. It’s good that so far we’ve achieved our goal of fleshing out the article while still having it be easy to read and understand for someone not well-versed in the fields of biology, medicine, or ceramic engineering (I’m a bio science major and often forget that most people don’t have the background knowledge on biology that I do and may not understand certain advanced concepts; I’ve always had this issue of assuming everyone has the same knowledge I do).

Overall, a lot of the reviews stated that the detail in the proposed additions was done very well and was also easy for someone unfamiliar with the subject to understand, which should be a main goal for any scientific Wikipedia article. Several reviews also stated the need for organization and further elaboration on further topics such as history or the refining process of the materials. Right now I don’t think we need to highlight what are our own additions and what was copied from the article because most if not all of the draft is original additions, but it’s something I’ll keep in mind for the future if I need to copy a section from the original article and edit it. As for organization, we both need to make an agreement on where each addition should go in the final article, and for neatness arrange each addition in the sandbox based on the topic of each addition and where it would fit in each section.