User talk:Akhamhoung/sandbox

In the intro you do a nice job of giving a definition and then following it up with a sentence that explains why this is important. A few small edits: in this sentence add a "been" so it is: "Disorders that may have been previously thought to be heritable", or even better "Disorders that scientists previously thought to be heritable". Under edit 7 you end with how small changes and additive effects are possible to study...it would be really helpful to just give a sentence or two as to why this is the case. Under the consent section, I would rephrase the questions as statements instead; such as, one controversy includes data from patients being published. Lastly, read over all of your sentences a few times, there are just a couple of places where some grammatical changes will complete the sentences better. Otherwise, all of the edits are really well explained and worded for comprehension. The sources check out nicely and citations are used correctly. It is a really interesting topic and you did a great job describing it! Kaw66 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Kaw66

-

I like the way your page is organized with the original text in bold followed by the edited versions. I like your edits in general, such as reducing plagiarism and improving the flow of the article.

In Edit 1, you link to the page for microarrays but your link is not formatted corrected. You can make the text say "microarrays" with an S and still link to the page titled "microarray" in the singular form.

Instead of directly quoting the source in Edit 2 it would be preferable to summarize the definition given in that source and cite it. That change is more consistent with the style of wikipedia. Also nutrigenomics is capitalized later in that paragraph and I do not think it is necessary to capitalize in that case.

I feel like Edit 3 presents additional information and doesn't necessarily need to be removed but I accept your judgement on that.

In edit 5 you have another improperly formatted link, scurvy should be lower case. You can customize text of links to link to an article with a different form of the term in the title. Also you capitalize "Obesity" later in that paragraph in that paragraph. Overall you should check the formatting of links and capitalization in this article, I won't point out any other specific instances.

Source 10 seems to make very big claims on the effect of nutrition on health. I looked and it seems to be a reliable journal, but I would be careful not to overstate the conclusions of the study.

In the consent section, is it necessary to have the questions stated as questions? Perhaps it would be more encyclopedic to restate those questions as a statement such as "This issue raises ethical questions on the topics of..."

Edit 10: "Issue" should be corrected to "issues", "on who was" could be changed to "regarding", and perhaps you should define "risk rate".

Overall you have made well-written, organized edits to the page. Most, if not all, claims are cited and neutral. Good work! Cacioppo.j (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)