User talk:Daniel9395/sandbox

Article/source choices
I think your article choice is of interest, and your experience in Immunology will be a big asset. I'm a little concerned with those sources. I think they are an OK start, but I also think that our knowledge of immunology and the mechanisms of histocompatibility have evolved since 1971. I'd suggest considering, among other sources, your textbook as an excellent starting point. --Katbartlow (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a well-written article. You have supported your topic with accurate information from your immunology book and other couple sources. I would advise you to look for more resources in addition to the book you're referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamahdi14 (talk • contribs) check this website: https://www.boundless.com/physiology/textbooks/boundless-anatomy-and-physiology-textbook/the-immune-system-21/humoral-immune-response-201/major-histocompatibility-complex-antigens-self-antigens-988-10107/ (talk)

Peer review stuff
This does look like a very interesting topic. It needs more recent sources, and information should be cited - even in a start class article, things without a citation are suspicious. In terms of general editing, I think that there's a lot of detailed information in your general section on MHCs that should be separated into an introduction to the subject that defines MHCs and includes the most important concepts from each subsection, a protein structure section, a mechanisms of action section, and a section on their role in human health/disease. The language is quite clear and neutral, and fun to read. Some sentences get a bit choppy and unclear, but I think minor grammar edits will solve that. Rrcopley12 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Kat's comments
Hi Daniel,

Very strong work so far. Make sure that you have a sufficient variety of sources, and that each assertion in your article is backed up by a citation to a relevant source.

Be careful about the copyright protections on images from the Immunology book you are planning on using. You probably aren't legally allowed to use those images without permission from the publisher, and you are unlikely to get permission from the publisher. Instead, I would search for other images that are licensed for reuse, or licensed for noncommercial reuse, and use those instead.

I'm excited to read your article as it continues to take shape! -- Katbartlow (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

I really like the direction you've taken with this article. It is lucid, simply-written, and contains useful and authoritatively-sourced information for a very broad audience. This is great, considering that your article is really likely to be read by sick people who need tissue transplants and/or their families. I think you should incorporate your revisions into the existing Wikipedia article on histocompatibility. The major changes I'd make at this point (apart from continuing to incorporate any new information you deem important) is to increase the extent to which you link concepts mentioned in your article to the Wikipedia articles on those topics. Just go nuts with double-brackets ;)

Katbartlow (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)