User talk:Malblaire/sandbox

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? The first two paragraphs of the lead were very clear and informative, however I think that the "germ line mutation" and "accumulated mutation" paragraphs might fit better not in the lead but instead under a different section titled "causes". Thanks! I think I might agree, I will try that out. MB

Did do this!

2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, I think you did a very good job of covering all of the important information in the lead. Thanks. Noted MB

3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? No, you did a great job of covering each area of the topic but not over-explaining anything. Thanks MB

4.	Is anything missing? No, within the first two paragraphs you cover all of the necessary information. Thanks MB

Actually found some stuff on criminology so I added that.

5.	Is anything redundant? No, but as I stated it seems like it would fit better to have the causes of age of onset in a separate section. Noted MB A clear structure 6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Yes, the article flows very logically. Noted MB

7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? No, the way it is presented right now is the most logical way. Thanks MB

Balanced coverage 8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? The theory of aging sections are a bit long, the article almost turns into a theory of aging wikipedia entry rather than an age of onset article. It was pretty impossible to find primary lit on age of onset explicitly, but I will try to relate theories of aging back to age of onset better.. I did this in the last paragraph of my paper, but I feel that is not appropriate in this setting. I do agree with the suggestion though.

I tried to cut this back.. got a little shorter but not much.

9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? In the theory of aging sections you have lots of good information, but you never tie it back to how it relates to age of onset of diseases. Rate-of-living theory states that aging (and in some cases disease onset) occurs in part due to a lack of damage repair.. I will try to make this more explicit. MB

Added a sentence in each being more explicit about this.

10.	Is anything off-topic? The research examples that you use are good and are pertinent information, but I think they should be condensed a little and made a little easier to understand. Thanks I will try to do this. MB

I did this! Got a little shorter...

11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Yes, you do an especially good job of explaining that the rate-of-living theory is not supported by research. Thanks noted MB

12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? You discuss lots about the theories of aging, which makes sense with how it ties to age of onset but you never come out and fully explain it. Also, you discuss lots about how mutations accumulate with age but what about diseases that have a young age of onset? Often, this would be due to germ-line mutations so I will try to clarify this. Thanks. MB

Actually, I do explicitly say this so I did not add anything.

13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, the article does a good job of explaining some of the issues with each theory. noted MB

Neutral content 14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, you state facts but you never try to convince the reader of anything. Thanks MB

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, you use a very neutral tone throughout the article. Thanks MB

16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, you have done a good job of siting sources and not stating claims. Thanks MB

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, you cover all aspects of the topic but do not signify which is best or most believable, you only state what the research has shown. Thanks MB

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? The sources seem to be reliable, it seems that they are mostly reliable journals. Noted MB

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 many different sources used. most of the information comes from different sources. Noted MB

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! It seems like there may be some unsourced statements in the first paragraph under the theory of aging section. Thanks MB

Logan Griffin Article Review
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?

Generally, you did a good job introducing the topic. I might add 1-2 more sentences about why age of onset is useful information. If I can find a good source to cite for this I will absolutely add it in. MB

Upon reflection, I feel the discussion of phenotypes and patient candidacy in the lead satisfies this, so this coupled with my lack of other info from sources here I left as is.

2.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

Yes, the introduction gives a good overview of the topic.

Thanks!MB

3.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others?

No.

Noted MB

4.	Is anything missing?

Nothing jumps out to me as being missing from the introduction.

Thanks MB

5.	Is anything redundant?

Nothing in the introduction seems redundant to me.

Thanks MB

A clear structure

6.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order?

Sections are generally organized logically, but I would add section headers to subdivide them to make it easier to read.

Great idea! I will add section headers when logical. MB

Looks way better after this addition.

'''7.	Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? ''' When discussing data from a study, I would start the sentence with something like, "In 2015 Jones et al. found that..." instead of just reporting the data and then citing it. You did this a couple times in the first paragraph about rate-of-living.

Thanks Logan! Noted- I will rewrite in this way when possible. MB

Actually, I did not change to this because I wanted to keep the theories of aging section as short as possible since it is related to AOO in a more roundabout way.

Balanced coverage

8.	Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject?

Each section seems to get more or less equal coverage.

Noted MB

9.	Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary?

No.

Thanks MB

10.	Is anything off-topic?

No.

Thanks MB

11.	Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature?

I haven't read the published literature, certainly not to the point that I know all its perspectives, so there's no way I could possibly answer this. This article seems to at least be off to a good start.

Noted MB

Added criminology and a couple more sources after more reading myself

12.	Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

There doesn't obviously seem to be.

Thanks MB

13.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No, the article presents facts in a neutral, scientific manner.

Thanks MB

Neutral content

14.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

No, the article sticks strictly to statements of fact.

Thanks MB

'''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 article does well at maintaining a neutral tone.

Thanks MB

'''16.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."'''

No.

'''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 just reports factual information.

Thanks MB

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? ''' All of the references are from academic journals.

Noted MB

'''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, most referemces are only cited once.

nOted MB

'''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!'''

Yes, there are several statements of fact that are not given citations in the article. I think this is because they are just cited at the end of the paragraph since there are several sentences in a row that come from the same source, but each statement of fact needs to be cited to the source that it came from.

Yes! I forgot that each sentence needed to be sourced! Thanks for catching this!

The first paragraph is partly from the original author so I did not add their sources in my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganHGriffin (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)