User talk:Ashah211/sandbox

--Cfau47 (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

peer review: charles fausto

Thanks for doing an awesome job on your rough draft wiki Atish! It was actually an easy read and I learned a lot just going through the wiki article. Great illustrations included as well. I think you hit every point on the rubric pretty spot on, and I am sure you will find more information as you continue the grind. I understand it's a rough draft so I just want to remind you that there's a couple sections where you've got bullet points leftover with requirements from the rubric. Good luck with the rest of your research!

So far it looks good to me! I suggest elaborating your introduction; possibly give some more background information and define some of the terms you used in that section. Additionally, you should find more content for your recent research section. Other than that, it looks good to me! -Nidhi Patel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhipatel826 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You did a good job on the rough draft, I can see the effort to attempt each section. The abstract and symptoms section are well-written. For the mechanism section I would say maybe go into more detail about how the mutation in the gene that produced the RECQL4 protein specifically leads to the symptoms experienced by this condition. Maybe explain the functions of this protein in the body, and how the protein incorrectly forming can affect these functions. Also for the Recent Research section, you could use more content. Look into summarizing a few of the key findings from the articles. - Richa Patel

Sweiner02 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There should not be a header on your abstract.
 * Use the larger headers for main sections. Take a look at other wikipedia articles for examples.
 * What is RecQ Helicase?
 * Link more things!
 * Some sections need more citations or are missing citations entirely. Diversity of sources would also be good.
 * Good use of clear, accessible language.
 * What would lead the doctor to do genetic tests for diagnosis?
 * The fact that it is autosomal recessive leads to some clear preventative measures. Make sure you address them.
 * Naming doesn't really belong in mechanism. Maybe in abstract or symptoms?
 * What do we know about this gene? Do we know anything about how this leads to the symptoms?
 * Recent research should be cited normally and discussed. It should not contain copied links.
 * Don't talk about the articles, talk about what was found.
 * A quick search found information on treatment research and other important research from the past 5 years that you should include.