User talk:Faizanwar08/sandbox

Peer Review The article is well structured and explained. It is easy to understand most of the concepts and contents after the first time of reading. The contents have enough details to be understood. The diagrams are clear and strongly related to the topics. Honestly, it is really hard to find impurities out of this article. However, I still have some suggestion about your citations. Through out the article, there's lack of citations. And without proper citations it is really tough to trace back where your data come from, and I could not verify the close paraphrasing as well. Suggestions: Thank you! --Hengyu0111 (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In "types of transporters", "function" and "epilepsy" sections, citation only occurs one time or none.
 * Some contents containing data suppose to have references.
 * The "epilepsy" section is kind of off the topic. The section is more about the introduction of the drugs for treatment of epilepsy, instead of epilepsy itself. Suggesting creating another section for treatment(drugs).

Tina Li's Peer Review
 Is the article clear? Most parts of the article are clear, and the organization of the article as well as the images assist in understanding the topic. One barrier to clarity is minor errors in sentence structure/grammar. However, epilepsy is not mentioned in the lead section.  What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved? The images provided are helpful as-is, and they are given appropriate context which further aid in understanding the topic. Notably, they have a copyright license that allows them to be reproduced on Wikipedia.  Grammar  Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?  What additional content would be useful?  Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?  Which topics are most interesting to expand on?  Wikilinks: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?  Are the sources reliable?  Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?  Are there additional sources that should be added?  Does the article rely too heavily on one source?  Is there any close paraphrasing?  Is it accessible to a non science audience? Too technical?  Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much?  Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way  Is the lead section clear, concise, complete?  Do the new additions fit with the old content? Should any of the old content be further edited?  Is the article redundant?  Is the article balanced? TinaYLi (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the lead, it should say "They are responsible for creating an equilibrium..." not "to create." At the end of the lead section, it says "There are present on the plasma membrane" and the correct grammar would be "They are present..."
 * In the "Function" section, there is a long sentence that is difficult to understand given the sentence structure and potentially missing words. I will re-post the sentence here: "The GABA transporter is an active system, electrogenic, a voltage-dependent which relies on the inward electrochemical gradient of Na+ ions instead of ATP, low micromolecular affinity to GABA with a Michaelis-Menten constant of 2.5 μM, and requires the presence of Cl- ions in the extracellular matrix."
 * Is this just a list of qualities?
 * If so, I suggest helping the reader understand that better by indicating that near the beginning of the sentence.
 * If not, I suggest restructuring the sentence, especially around the "electrogenic" area as it may be a term people are unfamiliar with.
 * All the content does seem relevant, although epilepsy should be connected to the lead section.
 * See above; the lead section needs to include all subsections.
 * See above for more information. Yes, it is well-organized and the content flows well. Content in each section makes sense in its respective placement.
 * Epilepsy would be interesting to expand on; however, what is included is adequate.
 * Yes, they are functional and are appropriate. I don't think more need to be added.
 * The sources are reliable and are mainly review articles from science journals, rather than primary literature.
 * No, there are not enough sources and in fact, Source 1 and 3 are the exact same source. The weakest part of the article is the lack of proper citation. Sections end without a citation and it makes it difficult to know where the information is coming from and to determine whether there is close paraphrasing. I also was not sure what the purpose of the second source was, although I see that this was from the original article.
 * Yes, more sources need to be added to balance out the article and ensure that one source is not overpowering the article.
 * See above.
 * YES! Again, this is from the original article and not written by the student, but part of the first sentence of the lead section VERY CLOSELY matches the first sentence of the abstract of Source 1. I will reproduce it here as proof: "GABA transporters belong to a large family of neurotransmitter:sodium symporters."Superscript text[1]
 * I believe that it is accessible to a non-science audience. The author excels at writing in simple language.
 * I believe that the absolutely necessary scientific terms are explained enough. I think that there are a couple terms where there are just Wikilinks rather than an explanation in-text. I think the only instance it was somewhat confusing was the example I pointed out earlier, although that may have been just the sentence structure.
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Mostly clear and concise, but has close paraphrasing! It is also incomplete as it does not address epilepsy.
 * Yes; the lead section needs to be edited. New additions do augment the old, but the old needs to be further edited to match the quality of the new.
 * No, the article is not redundant.
 * The article is balanced in length, but not in terms of source citation.

Reference: 1. Scimemi, Annalisa (2014-06-17). "Structure, function, and plasticity of GABA transporters". Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. 8. doi:10.3389/fncel.2014.00161. ISSN 1662-5102. PMC 4060055. PMID 24987330.