User talk:Hengyu0111/sandbox

Peer review for your article: - The intro is concise and relevant - I would read through your sentences out loud to catch some odd phrasing you have. Your ideas are good though. - Your structure section is very technical, we understand this as science students, but I think it would be a great place to add a diagram or photo to make it clear to readers. - your cancer sections are situated under a tumor suppression heading, but in the content written you do not address any aspects of tumor suppression (only in the brain cancer section). perhaps its would be more clear if you changed the section title to "relevance to cancer" or something like that - I'm not sure if the methylation of the gene belongs in the cancer section - perhaps you could include that in gene expression? similarly with your HCC section - again maybe read your sentences out loud to see if they sound a little wordy in the cancer descriptions - a diagram could be useful in demonstrating the interactions with EMP3 with the surface receptors of the cancer cells you discuss (otherwise hard to imagine bc of the technicality) - overall your sources look good and you have great content! just need to reorganize some stuff and clean up your sentence structure :) Safors (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Review #2

Format looks great! I like that you incorporated the current article into your format/info. It makes it seem more balanced and flows better. The intro paragraph does a good job of summarizing and explaining the general info about the topic. The wiki links worked, and I think everything you have as a link is fitting.

“According to the study, EMP3 mRNA has a higher level of expression in the carcinoma compared to normal breast tissues, which the overexpression of EMP3 has significant relationships with histological grade III, lymph node metastasis, and strong Her-2 expression.” Confusing-Consider rewording.

I made a few grammar edits to fix the tenses of verbs and reword a couple of run-on sentences. Feel free to keep rewording it to make it sound more how you want if you don’t like anything I changed.

A few more sources can be added (We need 10 for the final). All the sources that were used were legitimate and good references. There is a good balance of using all the sources fairly evenly.

The information is fairly technical, but it is still broken down enough to be understood by a non science reader and is written in a way that explains everything enough without reiterating other wiki pages. The information provided is neutral and balanced. Most of it is “new” research about its function, but all sides and discoveries seem to be covered in the article.

JennaRosel (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)