User talk:Jegude/sandbox

Overall it looks like you found good information from reliable sources! You balance the coverage of information from your sources very well and have a clear structure of what you want to talk about. I feel like your first section title could be shorter, maybe something like "Role in LH and GnRH release" since we will already know you are referring to the periventricular nucleus. It may be helpful for readers to see what GnRH stands for in parentheses somewhere. If possible, try to make some of your statements sound more like facts/encyclopedic. I am referring to the statements that say "researchers believe..." or "another research team..." If that can't really be done then maybe be more specific about which researchers/research team? I believe it is your last sentence you have "(Kasagi)" and then you cite a reference, but you won't need both of these. Great job so far ! Merchantofvenice9 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Merchantofvenice9

Peer Review
I think you did a great job of leading in readers for each section and providing enough information/credible sources for each section as needed. However, some of your information appears to be biased with the use of " researcher show" or " Another research team showed". I think if you reword those phrases or take them out you will present a more neutral article. I also think that it would be interesting if you could see if their are an studies that use the periventricular nucleus and what discovers have been made and to include a section discussing what are the structural or functional reasons why periventricular nucleus are not effective blood-brain barriers. Overall, this is a great start.Kbraxton (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Review
I like the suggestions from the peer reviews. If the information comes from a peer-reviewed study or secondary source, then you can state the information such that it is so and cite it. ProfJRL (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)