User talk:Cedombroski/sandbox

Tina Li's Peer Review
 Is the article clear?  What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?  Grammar  Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?  What additional content would be useful?  Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?  Which topics are most interesting to expand on?  Wikilinks: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?  Are the sources reliable?  Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?  Are there additional sources that should be added?  Does the article rely too heavily on one source?  Is there any close paraphrasing?  Is it accessible to a non science audience? Too technical?  Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much?  Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way.  Is the lead section clear, concise, complete?  Do the new additions fit with the old content? Should any of the old content be further edited?  Is the article redundant?  Is the article balanced? TinaYLi (talk)
 * I sometimes had trouble following the organization of the article. For the most part, each individual sentence makes sense, but in particular I wasn't sure how to interpret the "Function" section and its connection to the lead section.
 * Although it clearly expands on the topics presented in the lead section, it did not seem like function was very directly addressed until about two-thirds of the way into that paragraph. The progression in itself made sense on review, but some more context or transition words would also benefit the reader when reading it the first time through.
 * If possible, any way to visualize the protein or its function would greatly help in the aesthetic and appeal of the article, in addition to providing clarification of topics discussed.
 * I believe this was in the original article, but I would suggest changing "lifecycle" to its proper two-word form "life cycle" in the lead section.
 * This second clause on the function of MSP-2 is confusing: "it hypothesized it also has a role in RBC invasion due to its degradation shortly after invasion."
 * This stems from a few issues. Repetitive and consequently vague use of "it and "its" in addition to missing the article "is" between "it" and "hypothesized." At the same time, being more specific may help avoid the clutter that arises from passive voice. Example: "current research suggests a role in RBC invasion due to its degradation shortly after invasion."
 * All content is relevant to the topic - removing anything would make it more difficult to understand the topic.
 * Expansion of the last sentence would be useful as it feels somewhat incomplete.
 * See first answer. I believe more context or transition words would help understand the flow of the article.
 * In addition, the lead section could do with some work to be more cohesive.
 * Specifically, I think some parts are too vague, where others have too much detail. Although this once again seems to come from the original article, the point stands nonetheless. For example, the description of the merozoite breaks up the flow of the lead section. Although its explanation is helpful in giving some background knowledge, a more direct effort on part of the author to connect this to the topic would be beneficial.
 * As of right now, the brevity of the sentence while introducing new topics that are unexplained could conceivably confuse readers more. This presents a dilemma in that writing more could technically clutter the article. Care must be taken to find a good balance.
 * Drugs to disrupt merozoite replication needs expansion. Everything else seems as complete, given that there is much that is still unknown.
 * The links are functional and appropriate. I think everything that could be added has been added without becoming overwhelming.
 * The sources are reliable and appropriate. They come from respectable science journals and are primarily review articles.
 * Yes, there are enough sources. I believe everything is properly cited, although Wikipedia may not be recognizing the date format in a couple citations.
 * Potentially more on the last paragraph after expansion.
 * No. There are enough references from other sources to prevent it from being an article based around one source.
 * Not that I have been able to tell.
 * For the most part, this is accessible, considering that the topic in itself is probably not something that the average high schooler will be encountering. I do think in one instance, giving more context to "glycophospatidylinositol" would be helpful. Example: "...anchored to the merozoite surface with the glycophosphatidylinositol glycolipid." A link is attached for readers to reference further, but they could also stay on the page if they'd like.
 * I think scientific terms are explained enough.
 * The article is neutral. No differing opinions really needed to be presented in a balanced way here.
 * In itself, the lead section is clear and concise, but I felt a slight disconnect between function and the lead section as previously stated.
 * They do fit with the old content; however, Cedombroski should feel free to edit the old content to match the quality of the new content.
 * The article is not redundant.
 * The article is balanced.


 * Thank you for covering all the topics for class Tina! I have fixed the bulk of your suggestions so far. Would you mind elaborating on how to make the transition to the function section more cohesive? I see what you mean, but I can't decide the best way to fix this issue. Cedombroski (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Heather's Peer Review
HeatherKJ4 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Introduction: Replace. These Its surface protein complexes...
 * I think the first part of the Function subcategory, "The most common form of MSPs are anchored to the merozoite surface with glycophosphatidylinositol. Integral membrane proteins and peripherally associated proteins are found to a lesser extent on the merozoite surface", should be under a different (new?) subcategory. It doesn't say anything about the protein's function, although it is good information otherwise.
 * Function: "The first attachment of a merozoite happens between spectrin of a red blood cell and the MSP-1 complex." Reword this to be more precise, and say how they interact. Try something like "The merozoite first attaches to a red blood cell's cell membrane using its MSP-1 complex, targeting the spectrin's >insert interaction site<."
 * Function: "The exact role of MSP-119 remains unknown, but it serves as a marker of the formation of the food vacuole". Reword more simply, something like "The exact role of MSP-119 remains unknown, but it tends to be a marker of where the food vacuole will form."
 * Function: Delete the first half of the next sentence, "The function of the MSP-2 complex is not concrete". It is redundant with the previous sentence.
 * Function: Don't abbreviate 'red blood cell' into RBC, could be confusing due to all the other acronyms.
 * Clinical Significance: "Anti-malarial vaccines have been developed to target the merozoite at different stages in their its life cycle."
 * Link the wikipedia articles for the first uses of the words 'preerythrocitic'.
 * Images of the malaria parasite and the MSP protein would add a lot.
 * Thank you for the feedback Heather! I made edits to fix nearly all of your suggestions already. I am still thinking of how I can separate the locations/components of the different proteins into a different section. If you have any further suggestions, be sure to let me know! Cedombroski (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)