User talk:Dajen003/sandbox

Zaidel's peer review
The goals and questions listed are great. Having the genes and chemical composition on the page would be great if the information is available.

Some form of visual in the morphology section would be great to depict how the mesoderm is split up, just reading a sentence describing the anatomical structure is harder to visualize.

The sources are neutral and it doesn't seem like you all are drawing too much from a single article.

Sick.

--Zasan001 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Wren's Peer Review
I like the background information that is provided to give a general overview of the paper.

I agree with Zaidel that a visual of some sorts would be helpful in the morphology section. I was a little confused as to exactly where the four regions were developing from.

You mention the yolk sac, chorion, and amnion in the introduction but link them in the tissue differentiation section, when I read through I googled what those terms meant from the intro. It may be helpful to have them linked in the introduction so people have an understanding of what they are talking about moving forward. You could probably even link them in both places.

Overall, well done! There are some significant improvements to this page, it is more comprehensive and easier to understand!

Elwak001 (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)elwak001

Dalton's Peer Review
I agree with both reviews before me; this article shows very significant improvement.

Organization is clear, and so are your goals for unfinished work.

I also agree with Wren that linking the same things in the introduction as the links in the later section would increase clarity and user-friendliness.

Your citations are neutral and reliable, but the frequency of citation is a little unnerving; does each paragraph correspond to the citation that follows it (is the whole paragraph from the single source)? Damid001 (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Dalton

Esai's Peer Review
Overall, I think the goals put in place are a very good start. I particularly like how you are trying not too overlap with neurolation. In many wiki article I read it is handy to click on the word and be brought to that page to learn about that specifically.

It also is good that you are looking for even more sources, You can never go wrong with more sources and each source can always yield new info or refine the info we already have.

I agree with many of the reviews above me. Like zaidel said links to various terms would be awesome. Good work!

Esher001 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Esai Hernandez