User talk:Biophys99/Ethanol and Membranes

I am currently researching the effects of ethanol on membranes and was surprised to find that although there are numerous research articles on the topic, I didn't see any of this research incorporated into wikipedia yet. I'm happy to receive feedback on what I've written so far.

Biophys99 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Is the web page suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

- I would say that the page is ok for those who are looking for a little more detail. The page would really only be helpful if you already knew a good deal about a cell membrane, but without much knowledge of what the biochemical structure is or what ergosterol, sterols, and cholesterol are or do, then there is not much to glean from the section. For readers who are looking to understand the topic in more detail, there really isn't that much detail there. It really just needs a lot more expounding on each idea.

2. Is there a logical flow to the page?

- There is a logical flow to the page, but there isn't enough information on the page to really get much out of it. There is only a sentence or two telling about each main idea rather than taking a full paragraph to really get into it. Instead of having just one paragraph to understand what ethanol does to the cell membrane, Take three of four paragraphs to really supply some good information. It's great that you have three sources for the article, but you don't draw on them very much.

3. Do the contents of each section justify its length?

- There isn't enough length on each idea. One sentence or two do not justify a major idea that is brought up.

4. Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others?

- I think all of the sections (sentences) are under-emphasized. Again, write more paragraphs so that each paragraph covers an individual section that you would like to discuss. You can organize what you are writing into major topics and expound on each topic.

5. Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?

- I just don't feel like there is enough material presented in a clear way to say that this addition would greatly enhance the page. This could be a really interesting topic to read about, but I need more content to get much out of it. I would strongly suggest that you take some more time to put some content in it.

6. Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

- Yes! You did a very good job at linking important terms to their pages. You may even try to link more of them such as "micropipette" or "aspiration."

7. Do the images add to the educational value of the article?

- There are no images.

8. Are the references relevant and integrated well into the article?

- No. The sources are there, but as far as I can tell, they are only used to tell readers that 3 different techniques are used to study ethanol's interaction with the bilayer. The references could be used a lot more.

9. Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors.

- You could use some punctuation between "sterols cholesterol and ergosterol." Other than that, I didn't find any issues with grammar. It would be nice to have you references as their own section. Also, your references should probably include more than just a title of an article (authors, journal, date, etc.) This can be done easily on the "cite journal" tab under "cite" -> "templates." Without a picture, good citations, and material organized into individual paragraphs, I would rate the article pretty low on presentation. It has some work that needs to be done.

10. Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of one section, one figure, and three references per team member)?

- It does satisfy the criteria of having one section and three sources, but there is no figure.

I don't mean to be pretty brutal with this peer review, but there really just needs to be more done on the article. Sorry I haven't included this review until now either. I didn't see any content before last Tuesday. Jbdbaseball (talk)