User talk:MyFavoriteNumberIs24/sandbox

I think that there are many aspects that make the authors edits to the Bacterial stress response article worthwhile. The headings within the article make sense and contribute to its clear organization. Each heading accurately describes its own subsection and the wording is consistent throughout the article. The info added by the author is high quality and backed up by mostly trustworthy sources. The heat shock response, envelope response, and cold shock response sections all feel mostly complete and cover a good amount of information. The information within the article is also well balanced, with only well supported data that isn't biased or controversial. The tone is also mostly fitting for a Wikipedia article, as it is neutral and mostly scientific. However, there are some issues with these edits. First, the citations need to be spread across each paragraph instead of only being included at the end. Each sentence should be easily referenced to a corresponding source. The heat shock response section seems a bit short compared to the other sections and could use more information. The envelope response section is well put together, but repetition of the word stress makes the section feel like it should be condensed more. The cold shock response section is also well put together, but the use of the future tense ("they will", "it will be", etc.) doesn't fit the tone of Wikipedia and should be changed to past tense. The third source from News-Medical.net also doesn't seem to fit the source requirements for this type of article. Finally, the article could benefit from the addition of any figures. --Theowg (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)