User talk:Gschuette/sandbox

Review #1

The organization is really well done. The headings are fitting to the information beneath them, all content is relevant, the text flows well, and there aren’t any noticeable grammar errors. Everything is well explained such that a non science reader would be able to understand (and anything that they wouldn’t would have to be accessed from a different wiki article from the links you add in). All positions seem balanced.

References 16 and 17 are repeats of references 13 and 15.

Does the Function in neurons section include all widely accepted findings? Could more be added?

Consider adding the existing “history” section into the headings you already have. Incorporate it in instead of having it be its own section. Also, consider adding some of the details in the intro of the current article under your headings and shortening/summarizing it into a new intro section. Some things currently in the article overlap with the new stuff and could be combined together to make it flow better as a whole article.

Add a diagram of the negative feedback loop for the ROS? I can’t think of anything else to add as a picture since the original article already has the 3D protein structure.

I think the ATP concentrations is interesting and you can add more there if you can find anymore sources with info to add.

Wiki links can be added to key words and pathways (ie pancreatic beta cells, type II diabetes, hippocampus cells, mitochondria, ROS, electron transport chain)

Citations look correct, and there are enough sources, all of which look legitimate.

JennaRosel (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Liucatherinek Peer Review
INTRO:
 * Gradient could link to "electrochemical gradient" page to help clarify for laypeople what the term in this context means. Also could consider adding links to NAD(H), thermogenesis since these are more technical terms.
 * I appreciate the example of skunk cabbage, interesting!
 * Personal preference, I would treat the last sentence in the intro regarding thyroid hormone, norepinephrine, etc. with a new separate "paragraph" apart from the examples listed above.

Subheadings are appropriate.

Regarding ATP concentrations: there seems to be a lack in direction. Conclusions as to what the relevancy of UCP2/3 relationship and ATP concentration is would be helpful. What does the research suggest this relationship regulates?

Reagarding ROS:
 * I worry about your use of the word "scientific consensus" when there are only two-three sources cited in that particular subsection. It would probably be better to reword what you mean or add more sources when using such a strong word.
 * Certain sentences ("This, in turn....ROS production") are long and can be split into short, concise sentences.
 * Also, a diagram could be helpful.

Regarding neurons: Heavily drawing from source [9]. Consider referring to other sources! Otherwise seems interesting and relevant.

Liucatherinek (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)