User talk:Bdyoung/sandbox

Article evaluation of "Buddhist Studies"
-Article section "University programs and institutes" last two paragraphs offer statements without citations. -The statement "(A number of dharma centers offer semi-academic, unaccredited study; some of these seem likely eventually to win accreditation.)" in the second to last paragraph of "University programs and institutes".

Bdyoung's peer review by Cpanett
This seems like a good start to an edit. I see that you've used some of Dr. Smith's research, which is no doubt credible, but I remember reading that we're supposed to use more general resources rather than journal articles about very specific topics. I also think that after the first time you use an acronym (such as GPCRs) you should define the acronym in parentheses (i.e. ATP or adenosine triphosphate), that way, everyone reading the article can be on the same page and understand what is binding where. Nice work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpanett (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bdyoung peer review by abahado
Note: These questions for the peer review were some of the questions suggested and provided by the Wiki ed peer review module. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, also did a good job differentiating while also explaining similarites of the proteins. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? Does seem to mostly mention the mechanism of the proteins and a simple description, could mention a bit about their uses, and in regards to history, I don't think its too important to leave out some mention of history in the lead. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Organized well, but could put the history first to help explain the origin of the proteins. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Lengths of sections were equal to their importance. The mechanism section was the longest and this section also was the most important. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? It appears to represent a lot of viewpoints, but I am not completely familiar with the current issues regarding RASSLs and DREADDs, so I am not 100% certain. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? Does not try to convince the reader of any point of view, was informative and neutral. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Not really a perspective that he tried to push onto the reader Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Not really, maybe "has gradually been gaining momentum" under the history section; however, this simply states that the listed method of GPCR activation has started to gain widespread use. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." GPCRs are the target for some of the most widely used pharmaceuticals to treat diseases that involve virtually all tissues of the body" is the only claim without a direct reference (doesn't mention specific pharmeceutical or tissue), but in terms of making claims on behalf of a group or person, this was not done. All claims to people were cited. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No, the article did not have an emphasis on positive or negative material. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, no blogs or self published authors. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, the author had 9 sources, so they used a variety of sources, Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No, all the important claims had their sources.

On thing the author should do is add a "References" header to seperate that section and help organize the page a bit better. Abahado (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC) abahado