User talk:Isaguti/sandbox

Kayla’s Peer Review:

Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

The article flows very well and is organized properly, with subtitles and a logical progression from one topic to the next.

Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?

I think that the level of detail is appropriate. There is enough information that I can understand the topic, but not too much unnecessary detail.

Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?

The content is in appropriate sections and is not redundant. It might be a good idea to organize the first for subsections into an overarching subsection called something like “Forms of Reducing Equivalent.” It feels like the last category (Reducing Equivalents in the Mitochondrial Respiratory Chain) shouldn’t just be the next subsection, but rather should be part of a different category of information.

Does each section stand alone?

Yes, each section stands alone, but they are definitely all interrelated and relevant.

Is it neutral?

It is neutral, but I think the statement “For instance, consider the following reaction between iron and copper” might sound a little too casual. I might say something more like, “For instance, the following reaction between iron and copper demonstrates …”

Is everything cited?

Not everything is cited, so I would go back and add in citations after each sentence where any type of scientific information is stated. Most sentences are properly cited though.

Are there grammatical errors?

I did not catch any grammatical errors.

What images would be useful?

It seems like you have a good idea of where you would provide images of the proper reactions. I think those images would work well in your article.

All images are explained clearly

The image ideas are stated clearly, but there are no actual images yet.

Is it clear?

Yes, the article as a whole is very clear. Great job.

Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

I think overall everything is very relevant. Maybe you could expand a little bit more on the biological significance of reducing equivalents in the mitochondrial respiratory chain.

Scientific inaccuracy

The article provides only scientifically accurate information. Great job!