User talk:Murphyant/sandbox

Review for draft section in circadian rhythm article
This is a good start to an important section of the established article. I am going to assume that the entire content within the sandbox is the author's original writing, and that the author will either completely replace the existing "Human health" section or merge his writing into it.

In the "Neurodegenerative disease" subsection it seems like the word latency could be replaced with a simpler term such as "delay" to improve accessibility. Also, some additional examples/numbers besides the "40%" may help to flush out this part of the section. In addition, it appears that this section and the next section, "Disruption" are related and there is some significant overlap here, so I would consider merging these two sections if the author believes it will improve clarity.

The "Disruption" section would benefit from improved clarity and readability (flow). For example, the phrase "modulating epigenetics" is not going to mean anything to the majority of readers, so this should be rephrased or defined. In general, many points in this section can be simplified in language, yet still retain the vital info.

Some minor things:
 * Remember this is for a general audience, so words like "zeitgeber" should be avoided.
 * Seems like there are several opportunities to add wikilinks to certain words that would be helpful to readers and create more connections to/from the article (examples: "MCI", "melatonin", "dementia", etc).

This is a good start to this section. I wonder if there are more examples besides Alzheimer's that would add nuance to the article. Also, is there a greater variety of treatments than just Grehlin, which currently dominates the last section. Also, is this section specific just to Alzheimer's? If so, this is not clear at this point. The article will be greatly improved with attention to the organization and flow of info as well as examining the clarity of words and phrases.

-Nacutler (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Review for draft 4/7
I think the breakdown you've chosen for this topic is very appropriate and gives a good range of how different illnesses can effect standard human circadian rhythm. The language you used in this page is very manageable for a reader not well-versed in the topic, but readers of greater experience still benefit as well. This is one of the hallmarks of a good encyclopedia article and it's well-done in this page.

Obviously each section needs expansion, but you know this already. An important detail that I think is currently missing is an introduction to the topic and why the reader should care about it. I know it's frustrating to have to include this, but it's important because not everyone looking at this page will be an experienced reader who knows what they want to learn from the page.

I'm sure you're planning on mostly filling in information about human health impacts on circadian rhythm of various diseases, but this page isn't specific to that topic. Do you have a plan to fill in information about circadian rhythm in other animals, or is this already found in a separate wikipedia article? Iandoxsee (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)