User talk:Damankh/sandbox

Overall the contribution is well-written and explains the material well. One issue I noticed (presumably due to pasting from Word) is that you have no citations embedded in the text within your sandbox. Make sure that is fixed before transferring to the actual Wikipedia page. Also, some of the sentences in the morphology section (2nd paragraph) are run-on's and could be written more concisely or split up into 2 sentences. The most notable run-on sentences I noticed were the 3rd and 5th sentences in the Morphology section. Otherwise the other aspects of the contribution, such as neutral language, look very good. Jmalysa (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jmalysa - The content is good here. Additionally, in order to make this a proper Wikipedia page, you'll have to organize it into sections, write a clear, lucid lead paragraph, add supporting licensed figures if possible, include citations, and link to other pages where appropriate. NicholasOrnstein (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Evans Civ Comment
This is overall fairly written, and I assume that you're going to add sources when you add it to the actual wikipedia page. There are a few things I think you need to be cautious of, though. In your first paragraph, it seems like you're making an argument in favor of the theory that the virus originated in animal markets. I would be more careful to attribute that theory to a specific source and avoid making direct claims coming from your personal POV. Some of your syntax also becomes confusing when you get into more technical language. I'm not sure what process you're describing here, for example: "Both strains of the virus seek out an enzyme that converts zinc peptidase known as ACE2." I can't tell if "known as ACE2" is meant to refer to the zinc peptidase or the enzyme. You also don't specify what it converts the zinc peptidase into. When you get into more technical language, you might find it helpful to carefully define the terms and utilize shorter, simpler sentences. Best of luck!RWakely99 (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, well done. The prose is clear and impersonal. By providing greater detail on these processes, you are enriching (no pun intended) the subject matter here. The one consideration is, as RWakely mentions, the use of technical language. Wikipedia entries should be readable for and geared toward the average site visitor. Ensure that each detail is worth including for a general sense of the topic (as an encyclopedia entry need not have all the information available on a subject, but rather provide a lucid summary). NicholasOrnstein (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Nick Ornstein