User talk:LoganHGriffin/sandbox

Talk-Phoebe McGowin
A lead section that is easy to understand

1. Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Looking at just the lead, it is very clear and understanding of what the topic is and the importance of the topic. Right off the bat you know what the article is going to be about (if you know anything about biological sciences). 2. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? After reading the entire article, the lead reflected the most important information. It was very clear reading the lead what the entire article would be about. 3. Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? The lead doesn't give too much to any certain part of the article. It is more of an overview of the big pictures. 4. Is anything missing? Nothing is missing, just maybe a little more descriptive on background information for someone who was reading this knowing nothing about evolution. 5. Is anything redundant? Some things are redundant, but not to the point that it is excessive or too much. I think it is redundant in a good way.

Thanks, I'll see if I can make the intro a little more layman friendly without losing any information.

A clear structure

1. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? I thought that the sections were very well organized and in perfectly good order. It was very easy to follow the article from the sections. 2. Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The order was really good. I don't think that there is any other way to order the categories.

Balanced coverage

1. Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Each section's length is very equal within the article. I think you did a really good job explaining each section and dividing it up. 2. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? None of the sections within the article seem unnecessary. All of the sections are very important to the overall article. 3. Is anything off-topic? Nothing seemed off-topic to me while reading the full article. Everything added seems to be important to the entirety of the article. 4. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? The article for the most part represents all of the perspectives in the published literature. 5. Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? I do not think there were any viewpoints left out or missing. All of the important points are in this article. Great job! 6. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article is very non-biased. There is nothing that is trying to convince the reader to feel or believe a certain way.

Neutral content

1. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author because it is a very factual article, there is not much to sway or get someone to believe. 2. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." The article as a whole has great phrases and words, all of it flows and belongs. Nothing seemed to be weird or not fitting. 3. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." The article does no make claims based on people or groups, which is good! 4. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article focuses on both positive and negative aspects of the topic, there are no more weighted aspects covered.

Reliable sources

1. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Most of the statements are connected to a reliable source or another wiki page explaining the content. 2. Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. None of the sources are used too much, all of the statements make sense to where they are linked too, and most of the articles seem very reliable and balanced. 3. Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! I did not think that any other statements should be linked or cited that were not. Great job!!

Hey Phoebe, thanks for your comments.

Talk page- Libby Nisbet
A lead section that is easy to understand 1.	Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Your lead covers the topic very well, however I feel that this sentence " (OBPs) are small (10 to 30 kDa) soluble proteins secreted by auxiliary cells surrounding olfactory receptor neurons, including the nasal mucus of many vertebrate species and in the sensillar lymph of chemosensory sensilla of insects." may be confusing to people that do not have as extensive bio knowledge as we do. 2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? You did a good job of including all of the important info, however I don't know if the last sentence needs to be included. 3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, the lead does a great job of covering all of the important information in proper amounts. 4.	Is anything missing? I think it could be improved be either adding to the last sentence about how they were identified, or by removing it. 5.	Is anything redundant? No, the lead is appropriately brief, covering all of the necessary info.

'I'll try to reword the introduction to be more layman friendly. Thanks for your suggestion.'

A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Yes, the sections are well labeled and in a good order. 7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? No, the sections are in the most logical order.

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Yes, the function length is appropriately the longest section. 9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? No, each section has good and necessary information. 10.	Is anything off-topic? The expression section gets a bit confusing, I think that some of the info could be condensed. 11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes, the article does a good job of covering all views on what the OBPs could do. 12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No, since there is not a lot known about them there are not a lot of view points, but you do a good job of covering as much information as possible. 13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article does a great job of just stating the facts and not trying to persuade the reader.

'Yeah, I think I see what you mean on the expression section. I'll try to fix that.'

Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, the article only covers facts it doesnt give any biased perspectives. 15.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No, the entire article is very neutral. 16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, the article uses sources for facts and doesnt use any claims. 17.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No, the article clearly relays summaries of all info on the topic.

Reliable sources 18.	Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? yes, the sources are reliable you use tons of journal articles. 19.	Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. No, there are tons of sources used. 20.	Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No, you did a great job of giving sources for all outside info.

Hey Libby, thanks for your comments.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnisbet10 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)