User talk:Kristenforehand/sandbox

Kristen's peer review
I am impressed by the clean appearance of Kristen's sandbox. All there is clear, readable and organized.

From the history of Kristen's contributions I see three types: an edit of format, addition of a sentence and an addition of a section. She has listed links for subtopics which will serve to flesh out the article once they are populated. Perhaps I have missed some more?

She has added a clear, concise and neutral introduction and a good assessment of the state of the article as she had found it. I agree with her points that the article could benefit from better writing, addition of references, addition of a fetching lead-in image, addition of more sections, addition of citations for quotes, improvement of the format and in general more background.

I am not sure I understand the comment about the article seeming biased. Nor do I understand the comment about sports in relation to the article. ???

The article itself seems to focus on system subunits. What I miss is mention of symbiotic systems.

Revision of this article may require a significant amount of work to reach the level of an excellent piece without becoming broad and long.

Cre8ifs (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Hi David. Just to clarify, when I did my article evaluation I had picked a completely different article (it was the SUNY Albany page) and had made my evaluation off of that so that is where the sports and the bias comments come into play. As for some of your other comments, my plan is to execute and perfect a section before adding more information and possible other examples of other biologic systems into play. There are some references that I had posted on the articles talk page that were for biological systems in general, but had also found some information on cellular systems within one of the articles as well. I'm still planning out in my head the potential items that i want to add to the article that I haven't executed yet, but will keep symbiotic systems in mind when I start executing. I agree with you that the article needs some large amounts of reviewing to make it a higher rated article and hope I can add a good amount to it. Kristenforehand (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing Articles in Your Wikipedia Article
I notice that at least one of the citations you've used in your article includes a "libproxy" to the UAlbany databases, which means it may not be accessible to others. This may have happened due to using a URL to generate a citation. I would recommend using the DOI, if the article has one, as that is a much more stable link. You can learn more about DOIs. If there is no DOI, use the manual option to enter the information.TrudiJ (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)