User talk:Mgsh9/sandbox

Peer Review
The edited content is logically placed within the article. However, some improvements could be made in the structure of this subsection. For instance, the regulation of antibody production by gut flora is mentioned in a sentence at the end of the paragraph discussing cytokines. This sentence could be moved and incorporated into the added content about class-switching, since these topics are related.

The edited content is relevant to the rest of the article, and discusses different aspects of the immune system (eg. innate immune cells and antibodies), providing good coverage of the topic. Ideas are presented and explained with support from literature.

The writing is easy to understand and exhibits a neutral tone, but could be more concise in certain areas. For example, the first sentence of the third paragraph (“The immune system can be altered by gut bacteria…”) could be rewritten in a more condensed manner. Otherwise, the writing flows well, and ideas are connected to appropriate examples. There is no close paraphrasing or plaigiarism.

All of the cited sources appear to be reliable, drawing from peer-reviewed articles in journals like Nature. As well, there are three different sources used, which is a sufficient number to reduce bias in the information. However, the citations seem to be slightly inconsistent with the established citation format (particularly the use of punctuation in the list of author names).

Finally, links to other Wikipedia articles could be added in the edited content to provide further reading on topics that may require further explanation (eg. class switching).

-Yasmine Chung (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review Yasmine. I found your ideas helpful in improving edits to the "Gut Flora" page. I liked that you gave me specific examples as it made it easy to follow which parts of my edits I could improve. Thanks again! --Mgsh9 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)