User talk:Abland8/sandbox

Reviewers: Taylor, Marianna, and Kyle Lead Section: 1.5 It needs to go more in depth. For example, talk about all the sections in the paper. Work on making it flow better together. Content: 13 Life cycle- The second sentence needs to be reviewed, it does not make sense. Include the full life cycle, how long does it live, ect. Fertilization and cleavage- Go more in depth to explain things, also need to read over and fix grammar/capitalization errors Gastrulation- More depth Advantages and disadvantages- Talking about the experiment is kind of long, need to get to the point of the section Style:1-1.5 Add a title, topics are labeled so that is good, coverage of topics is not well balanced Citations: 3 You guys only had 16 references

Reviewers: Zebrafish group

Lead: 1.5 The lead was overall good, but lacking some information.

Content: 16 We think all the topics are covered that are necessary for the C. elegan development, but needs more depth of the content.

Style: 1.5 We think there are issues with the writing styles and the coverage of topics isn't completely well-balanced.

Citations: 4 There was only 16 references used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ablair2 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)