User talk:Law3liu/sandbox

When you review my sandbox I decided to do 2 receptors instead of one. however both of them are in the ethanol and voltage gated calcium channel article. I just put both here for convenience for now but will move them accordingly when we upload the real thing Law3liu (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Is the web page suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

This page is suitable for scientists looking to understand the topic in more detail, however, it seems kind of difficult to read for a general or first-time user. You have lots of good data from your sources, but I think you need to introduce your topics a little better before diving right into the research. Perhaps throughout the whole page, you could explain things at a level more understandable to the common reader. Sometimes, it looks a lot like you just copied and pasted sentences from your sources, and I think it would be so much better if you could explain the research in your own words to make it a little easier to understand.

2. Is there a logical flow to the page?

Thanks for the note in your sandbox about what pages you are adding your 2 sections to. That makes a lot more sense to me now. I can see how your 2 topics are related, but it is a little hard for me to follow the flow of this page in general. I feel like if you could connect your ideas throughout each section a little better, it would make a huge difference. I think some of the syntax errors (see #9 below) play a large part in making the paper hard to understand, and once you fix a few of those, it will help immensely.

3. Do the contents of each section justify its length?

I think the length of each section is appropriate for the amount of information you are giving. Good job here!

4. Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others?

Nope. Nice job here as well.

5. N/A

6. Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

Great job linking important terms in your page, especially to the patch clamp page. My group appreciates that ;)

7. Do the images add to the educational value of the article?

Great images as well. They are the perfect size and definitely aid in understanding your page.

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

Yes, the references are relevant and you do a good job of explaining their results on your page. However, you are a little vague at times when referring to the research. You say "studies show" or "research indicates" or "it has been shown" a lot, and I think it would help if you just briefly mentioned these studies you are referring to, or who conducted them, in order to help decrease confusion. After you introduce the study, perhaps instead of saying "it has been shown that..." just state the fact, and then do an inline citation to the source where you got that fact. If you did this throughout the page and made the words your own, it would make it much more pleasant to read.

9. Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors.

You are going to hate me here (if you don't already haha). Sorry I am such a grammar stickler.

Some of the errors I have found:

" The lower levels of vasopressin from the consumption of alcohol HAVE been linked to ethanol acting as an antagonist to voltage-gated calcium channels"

" Voltage clamp recordings were done on the aplysia neuron and VGCC were isolated and calcium current was recorded using patch clamp technique having ethanol as a treatment" too many "and"s, run-on "similar results have shown to be true" sentence does not make sense, try rewording

"single channel recordings fROm isolated nerve terminal of rats also show that ethanol does in fact block VGCC"

"There HAVE been additional studies on mouse cerebral..."

" α1C, α1D, and α2/δ1 subunits show an increase of expression after sustained ethanol exposure. However, the β4 subunit showed a decrease" show then showed- make sure you stay in same tense throughout

"Thus, indicating completely independent binding of ethanol to the channel and expressing non-cooperative binding" this is not a sentence, no subject and verb. You could say "This indicates that ethanol binds independently to the channel..."

The first sentence of your second section does not make sense. Doing what to a GABA receptor has the same effects as ethanol consumption? Perhaps activating it?

"Some of which include..." is also not a full sentence.

"This has led to the study..." What has?

Need commas after introductory words like thus, and however,

"rather than its γ-subunit counterpart which is involved in phasic inhibition" -need comma before which

"GABAA receptors containing the δ-subunit are sensitive to ethanol modulation, depending on subunit combinations receptors could be more or less sensitive to ethanol" -need comma after receptors

10. Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of one section, one figure, and three references per team member)?

You did a great job researching all of this information and compiling it together. You met the criteria for having at least one section, one figure, and 3 references. I would just try re-reading through your page and fixing any syntax and grammar issues. When you read through the page, try reading aloud to yourself to make sure that the common reader can understand what you are saying and that there is a logical flow to your page. Other than that, great work! Fabreezy1 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)