User talk:HeatherKJ4/sandbox

Is the article clear?

 * The information is clear, but I feel it would benefit from rearrangement of sentences into different subheadings
 * For example, I think it would be useful to put the information about how they are powered (ATP/cofactors) in the pathway section. I know You mention them with about the same detail in the intro and subheading so maybe moving everything to the pathway section and elaborating on it a bit more would be more effective.
 * The last sentence of the lead section needs some sort of rearrangement, it is written in the wrong tense

What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?

 * This would benefit from a little diagram that summarizes the overall types of anabolic pathway, I looked at the catabolism page and it has a really neat diagram, the exact opposite of that would be really nice in this case!

Grammar

 * Last sentence of lead section is in the wrong tense! I think switching "operating" to "operates" and possibly breaking that sentence into two would fix this.
 * Also, I'm not 100% sure about this but I think the only bolded word in a wikipedia article is the actual word that the article is about so I think biosynthesis should be unbolded and written outside the parenthesis (I would check with someone else about this before taking my word for it though)

Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?

 * I think all the content is relevant, but would be more useful to the general reader if it were organized differently. I think the function section would be easier to read if it had smaller subheadings underneath it (the black bolded text ones like I'm using right now)

What additional content would be useful

 * I would like to know if there are examples/classic pathways (besides photosynthesis) the same way catabolism has classic pathways

Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?

 * Like I said before, I think the Functions section would benefit from subheadings to divide up the information. Right now it’s a little overwhelming because there are so many different topics underneath it

Which topics are most interesting to expand on?

 * I would like to know more about the pathway!

Wiki links: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?

 * Wikilinks are appropriate and work

Are the sources reliable?

 * They are all textbooks, which are presumably reliable

Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?

 * Need more sources!
 * Something about the references section came out funny, so some of the sources are underneath the section but others are at the bottom of the page. Maybe retry entering the template?

Are there additional sources that should be added?

 * I would try gathering information about specific pathways from review articles to have more variety in your sources

Does the article rely too heavily on one source?

 * There is a pretty even distribution of citations however the functions section has a large chunk that is uncited

Is there any close paraphrasing?

 * Haven't checked the textbooks

Is it accessible to a non-science audience? Too technical?

 * For the most part I would say it is accessible, however there are definitely areas where the reader could benefit from a short summary in the writing in addition to linking the article about the page
 * For example: in the lead section when you mention ATP hydrolysis, I think it would be useful to say that this releases energy

Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much?

 * The sentence in the pathway section about the aggregation of molecules should have a bit more explanation, I don't think the typical high-schooler knows about hydrophobic aggregation, but they would benefit from understanding it!

Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way?

 * Not sure where this article would have a biased viewpoint

Is the lead section clear, concise, complete?

 * The sentences about ATP hydrolysis/cofactors should probably go in the pathway section and be elaborated more there instead. I would just mention something general like the fact that there are key reactants necessary to power these pathways and then elaborate later.

Do the new additions fit with the old content? Should any of the old content be further edited?

 * The old content is relevant, but should just be organized a bit better to make the article more accessible to someone looking for something specific

Is the article redundant?

 * The section about ATP/cofactors is redundant but I already suggested moving it entirely to the pathway section and writing a lot more about it there

Is the article balanced?
Cedombroski (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The pathway section needs more content, which is conveninent because I suggested going into more detail about ATP hydrolysis/the different cofactors here!

Liucatherinek Peer Review
Clarity: some sentences are structured awkwardly, could rearrange to improve readability. Also consider using short, concise sentences instead of single, long ones. The latter risks jumbling too many ideas at once.

Organization: the intro paragraph seems slightly disorganized, jumping from catabolism to other subtopics from time to time. There also seems to be some redundancy in the intro. In addition, the different examples in the Functions subheadings could be separated into short paragraphs for clarity.

Relevancy: Not sure if it is necessary to specifically name reducing agents in the intro paragraph. It would be interesting to consider a wider scope of biosynthetic pathways in physiological context other than fatty acid synthesis.

Images: Visual aids could be useful when describing the an example of the phospholipid bilayer formation.

Sources: Could expand in the referenced literature. Especially in functions, more sources could be referenced in the organ and tissue section.

Specifics:
 * Not sure why "building up" is in quotes under the Functions subsection. Could reconsider integrating it in a less informal way.

Liucatherinek (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)