User talk:Jbryan13/SNARE (protein)

I figured that I would just go straight down the list of requirements. Sorry, not the most exciting format ->

1. Is the web page suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail? I felt like I was reading a research paper so I don’t think that a first time reader will understand what’s going on without reading each and every link on that page. For kicks and giggles, I asked the girl next to me in one of my CS classes (so she isn’t stupid) to read it and she just shook her head and had no idea what the first section meant. It needs to be dumbed down for the average reader. That might mean less detail, but if the reader gets frustrated and quits then all the detail in the world doesn’t matter. This same advice applies to the second section, but I thought that one was more readable. The last section I think you could leave alone.

2. Is there a logical flow to the page? Very much so. I wouldn’t change it at all.

3. Do the contents of each section justify its length? Yes. There is so much detail that I think that some of the paragraphs (especially in section 1) actually might need more words in order for the common reader to be able to understand the subject. The 2nd and 3rd sections I thought had enough words to get the point across without being wordy.

4. Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others? Looking at length, the last section just had fewer steps then the others, thus less words. The first section was longer because there was so much detail, but I felt that the understanding of it was integral for the following section. So all in all I thought that the presentation was balanced.

5. Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline? Not sure what this wants.

6. Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference? All of your links work and outsource to the appropriate places. You might want to consider having a few less repetitive links. E.g. there are 5 links to Munc18 in your second paragraph. Syntaxin also has 5 links in the second paragraph. Membranes in the 5th paragraph also has 4, except the object referenced in that paragraph changes at every mention so I think you're ok. I'd also consider linking the trans-SNARE to your picture and maybe do something visually with the cis-SNARE. I was reading the words and the picture would have lent more context to what you were saying. All the rest of your choices I think are good.

7. Do the images add to the educational value of the article? Looking solely at the graphic, I was lost. The first step shows a protein leaving, but then there are magically 4 more proteins (clustered) that weren’t there before hand and another one that’s labeled as free. Graphically, there is no indication of anything being added. Taking the next step to the top, I thought that step was easily understandable, but then the step that unites the pathways has all the clustered proteins missing without an indication of where they went! I get the idea from reading the caption, but I there are some details missing that made it distracting. I’m very visual so graphics are so important to me.

8. Are the references relevant and integrated well into the article? Yes.

'''9. Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors.''' The words and grammar were fine. The only improvement I would make would be to make the picture bigger since it was a detail heavy topic.

10. Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of one section, one figure, and three references per team member)? YES Robiso22 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)