User talk:Exu12/sandbox

Platelet Plug Edits: •	Introductory Sentence: I think your introductory sentence is good—concise and clear. The only thing I would consider changing is maybe briefly describing what platelets and hemostasis are. I know you wikilink-ed them, but from my own experience with Wikipedia articles, I rarely click on a wikilink while I’m reading them, so if the reader is like me, they won’t click it either and might be confused. Using that logic, I briefly explained what each of my wikilinks were in my actual writing just to be clear, so again maybe consider doing that (once I did click on the wikilinks though, I understood perfectly). •	Summary: I think your introductory paragraph is good. It’s easy to read and understand. The only comment I have would be to change the last sentence, if you’re saying the platelet plug can also be referred to as primary hemostasis I think you should put it in your parenthetical in the first sentence, if that’s not what you mean then be clearer about what “it” is that can be referred to as primary hemostasis •	Context: Again, your introduction is good and everything in the introduction is also in the article. •	Organization: I think the organization of the article is also fine. The headings are good, however secondary hemostatic plug formation and consolidation of hemostatic plug are both really short sections and I think would benefit with expanding. •	Content: In the second paragraph under history you wrote adenosine triphosphate but then in parenthesis wrote ADP (instead of ATP), you continue saying ADP throughout the rest of the article, so make sure to clarify whether you want to talk about ADP or ATP in the article. In platelet activation I would consider discussing what unwanted thrombosis is or what its implications are. Maybe wikilink/ describe what endothelium cells are in the platelet adhesion section. At some point you stop calling it a platelet plug and switch to calling it a platelet thrombus—I would suggest being consistent in what you call it. •	Balance: Definitely balanced and unbiased. •	Tone: Definitely neutral. •	Images: No images but if you were to consider using one I think the platelet adhesion section where you discuss the conformational change of platelets would be a good place for an image. •	Citations: I think you need to add citations within your lead section. There should also be citations for platelet activation section. Citation where you explain the shape change that platelets undergo in the platelet adhesion section. Citation in platelet aggregation section. Citation in consolidation section. •	Sources: The sources look good and reliable to me; however you only have 4 and I think you might want to add some more and do some more research. •	Completeness: The references look complete to me as well. •	Coverage: Since I couldn’t find that there already was a platelet plug Wikipedia article, I’m assuming this is a new article. What you have is really well written and clear so far (aside from a few comments, made above) but it’s pretty short, and doesn’t look like it’s 2,000 words. If you needed any ideas on other things to add to get to 2,000 one thing I think you could do would be medical conditions where platelet plugging goes awry (hemophilia, and I’m sure there are others). •	Article body: The body is fine but I think you need to add more sections and expand more on the sections you have, specifically the secondary and consolidation sections. Best of luck with revisions! Joannaberg4 (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Platelet Plugs: 1. I thought the introduction paragraph was very clear. I thought there was just the right amount of information to keep the flow of ideas consistent and easy to follow. However, I would add a sentence about secondary formation and consolidation.

2. I liked how you you separated the platelet plug formation into steps. It made it easy to follow. I saw no issues in balance or tone. Some images would certainly be beneficial to the article, if you can find any. You have a few clunky sentences with a lot of commas that can be difficult to follow. I'd recommend breaking them up and expanding, since some of these sections are pretty short.

3. References seem good. I'd add a few more and make sure they're all complete.

4. I thought this was pretty comprehensive of the topic, but I think more sections could be added. How it is involved in health or medicine?

-Shawn Mozeika