User talk:Dinahcann/sandbox

This is where peer review feedback for Dinahcann's ACE contributions should be posted. Do this by clicking the New section button above. Remember to sign your Wiki username and complete the Canvas quiz to get credit for your peer review work. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

xv review
Is the content written in a neutral, unbiased tone?

Yes, there were no biased remarks as it was fairly straight forward. The sandbox contained neutral words in their ACE2 pathway and biochemical property explanation.

Do the citations follow the MEDRS (Links to an external site.) (medicine, reliable sources) guidelines?

Yes, they are all secondary sources and seem to have solid evidence that has been largely accepted denoting that the sources and information are legitimate, as well as not construed in any malicious manner. They are also all from reputable medical journals.

Are the citations formatted correctly?

Yes, they are all cited in APA format and are included in the references.

Visit the main article that your classmate is contributing their new content to.

Does it make sense to add this new content to the proposed article? Yes, the content in the sandbox fits well with the proposed article. The proposed article could use more work and I think that this sandbox could contribute to the article. The sandbox had succinct information on ACE2 that helped readers understand the function of ACE2 and how its mechanism. I thought it was interesting how ACE2 played a role in SARS-CoV2 which in turn plays a suspected role in diabetes. However, with that being said, I think that this sandbox had already been published to the proposed article under the function subheading.

Are there any other areas of the main article that your classmate could contribute to?

I think that the author can contribute to the structure portion as well as start a section on its synthesis. These would be two good starts to contributing to this article as they are have not been well developed or developed at all, not to mention that ACE2 is well studied and could easily be found online.

Xengvang (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

J. Kelly Peer Review
Is the content written in a neutral, unbiased tone? ''Overall yes, good work! The portion that discusses ACE2's potential for fighting SARS infection seems a little out of place and maybe like it's advocating.'' Do the citations follow the MEDRS (Links to an external site.) (medicine, reliable sources) guidelines? The recent article on COVID-19 toes the line here, but the rest of the sources look appropriate. Are the citations formatted correctly? One citation has no source and another has some red text regarding a date. Visit the main article that your classmate is contributing their new content to.

Does it make sense to add this new content to the proposed article? ''In truth, I'm having a little bit of a hard time figuring out where in the article this section is supposed to go. It looks like maybe it's supposed to replace the lead section but I see problems with that replacement.'' Are there any other areas of the main article that your classmate could contribute to? ''I would recommend adding a couple of sentences to the lead rather than changing it altogether. Most of what's there is good and follows the article well, but it could use a little bit more detail I think.'' Vcymbals16 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)