User talk:Gingerscotch/sandbox

Looks good so far! I'm sure the more info you get and put in there will make it seem more full.Swalk22 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the article's current focus on expression of this traditionally cardiocentric channel in nervous tissue, it may be appropriate to further explain the background of where these regulatory molecules are commonly found. This would have the added benefit of helping this regulation section tie in with the rest of the article, instead of leaving it with an even more disjointed feel than it already has (due to the last section, which just feels weird. And the formatting if off on the last paragraph too with the bolding.) Once you have flushed out your paragraph a bit more, you may consider adding a sentence in the opening section to tie the whole article together. The "Function in the heart" section could use some expansion as well, though this may go beyond the extend of your current efforts. Nevaldiaa (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will try and find more articles that explain where these channels are located within the heart and brain. I will copy over some sections from the current page to tweek and try to tie it together more concisely.Gingerscotch (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the small additions so far. I would suggest trying to either combine sentences or add transitions so they flow better. Right now the information seems choppy/disjointed to me simply because the syntax and structure is that way... Hopefully that makes sense.Swalk22 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, there seems to be overlap between several of your new sections and those of the existing page. You could probably combine your heart functions with the existing paragraph and as well as adding your activity paragraph either before or after the existing structure paragraph. Just be careful that you don't repeat information unless you're adding new insight (like cAMP regulation). Nevaldiaa (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I've tried to combine the paragraphs and restructured it using what's already in the current article. How much do you think I should address the original research included at the end?Gingerscotch (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is super late. I think its hard for you to change the original research section since you didn't write it at all. I think you would have to read the papers they cite in order to edit them correctly, but its already flagged accordingly. It would be nice if it were changed, but from what I understand it shouldn't be your responsibility do it entirely. Swalk22 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)