User talk:Humanpersonfromhere2/sandbox

A few thoughts on your article:

I like the topic, as it is broad in the possibility of applications but leaves enough room to go into a certain amount of detail about those processes and what they are meant to uncover.

I think it may be beneficial, in the spirit of the community encyclopedia, to keep the work that's already up on the existing single-cell analysis page and not delete it all. If there are minor details that need fixing that's one thing, but try to work your new material in with what is currently existing on the page.

There are a number of grammar and punctuation issues dispersed throughout the article such as "the first step regardless of the type of analysis that will be performed is isolating single cell" which should be "the first step, regardless of the type of analysis that will be performed, is to isolate a single cell."

After the title Genomics, you may want a short introduction to transition from the isolation of the single cell to the genomic processes that will be performed. I think this would make the general process of analyzing these cells a bit more clear as the progress from isolation to analysis is more laid out.

In the section Genomics: Purposes, you may want to be careful saying that single cell analysis is the only way to observe cancer at a genetic level. Any use of "only" has to be extensively vetted, so you would be safer saying something like single cell analysis is a primary method to see this effect.

I can tell that you are still working on Transcriptomics and Proteomics, so just try to keep your language general but well-cited.

Peer review for "Single-cell analysis"
The article has a very organised structure, which makes it easy to follow. The lead section does a good job in summarising the topic and clearly prepares the reader for the details in the later sections. However, several sentences could be reworded for better efficiency and clarity. For example, I would write the second and third sentence in the lead section as, "Due to the heterogeneity seen in both mammalian and bacterial cells, analysing a single cell makes it possible to discover mechanisms not seen when studying bulk population in cells. These discoveries would not be possible without the study of single cells".

Some minor issues include punctuation and grammar errors throughout the article. For example, I'd write the sentence "This method although simple has been shown to show very low genome coverage" as "This method, although simple, has been shown to show a very low genome coverage". Also, in the Purpose section of Genomics, I would avoid using the word "only" in the last sentence to keep a more neutral tone.

Lemontree96 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer review by blueboombox
The first observation in comparison to the original article is that it has been build from the ground up. The sectioning implemented provides a well-organized backbone that was not there before. Also, the amount of information added is extremely helpful providing the reader with a foundation for what single-cell analysis is. I see no areas that require major revision, but some small areas that may require attention. For example, the sentence, "Due to the heterogeneity seen in both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell cell populations," in the lead section. Is "cell cell" correct terminology or is that a typo? If correct, would it be cell-cell? Also, the sentence, "To analyze single cells the first step, regardless of the type of analysis, is isolating single cells," could be adjusted to "The first step of single-cell analysis is the isolation of single cells." It is an opinion but I do not think it is necessary to say regardless of technique. Also, as mentioned above in other reviews, the comma usage is scarce relative to the necessity. Overall, this article executes the purpose well, and provides the reader with the necessary information about single-cell analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboombox (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)