User talk:570smb/sandbox

hi- this looks like good, applicable edits. The topic seemed like it was lacking the areas you chose to elaborate on and I think the verbage you are proposing is technical and fits with the message and flow of the article well. Good job meshing your work with the original author.

570kkl (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)570kkl

greetings, there are several key edits and additions that will significantly help provide additional information and insight on toxicology of carbon nanomaterials. The addition of exposure characterization should provide further insight and mesh well with summarization of epidemiology. I am not very familiar with this topic, however, through reading the existing article and your edits I feel that the new article will be much improved.

Rebur (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Make sure acronyms are defined before using them. While this page is very technical it seems very well done and well researched. You mention that there is low potential for exposure in most occupational settings. Are there any other settings that should be considered? It doesn’t sound like it but if so, it may be worth evaluating. 570mna (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Very well done. I agree that your edits mesh very well with what is already written- without the italics I would not have been able to discern who wrote what. One small thing, possibly adding what the recommended exposure limit is to the statement, 'Relatively few of the samples returned results higher than the recommended exposure level as published by NIOSH.[4]' Otherwise the reader has to already know what that is, or go to NISOH itself, which some may do but I warrant most won't. But as it would likely only be interesting to those who like numbers, I would say it isn't wholly necessary for the article if you don't want to include it. 570rlg (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, as others have said, I believe your addition to the original page is spot on and your edits flow very nicely with the existing page. I like your use of exposure and effects characterization subheadings and I feel like you really embraced the risk assessment idea as a whole for this page. Great job! -570alp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 570alp (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This is a great update for the existing article. Good job! It is very difficult where to suggest areas for improvement. You have addressed the idea of problem formulation well and clearly communicated the information. Good job! 570bcs (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC) 570bcs

Great article, adding the effects and characterization subheading helps to break up the massive amount of information under the toxicity heading. I really like your additions and I think it adds a lot of useful backgroun for readers. I don't have too many changes to reccommend because the thought you put into this already is evident; but if you are looking to make a change, I was thinking that maybe moving your content about exposure characterization above the toxicity information since determining toxicity comes from identifying exposure scenarios so it might help to introduce the scenarios before the existing toxicity subheading. Whether you see that tip as a good idea or not, I really like your additions to the existing page and I think it adds a lot of value to an already informative piece. 570cjd (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with other commenters. I really do not have any constructive comments for you, unfortunately! I think your edits are well-written, necessary, and will be a significant contribution to the existing article. I so appreciate that you italicized your additions and provided a link to the existing article!! Your additions are in keeping with Wikipedia formatting, as are the references. The edits you made show an understanding of the assignment, as well as the objectives for this course overall. Really, really great job! :) 570hjm (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)570hjm