User talk:NSLIVITSANOS/draftPAR1

•	Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

The article flow is really well and sensible. I think the subsections are divided strategically and describe necessary information about PAR-1. There are a lot of facts, but they aren't thrown in randomly or in an interjecting way.

•	Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?

I think this article has too little detail when it comes to certain things such as specific compounds mentioned. Not that you need to define every molecule or substance mentioned, but maybe linking those terms or providing a quick explanation would be helpful for readers to keep up with the acronyms. Also, I believe there is not enough detail because two of the sections remain unfinished, but I'm sure those will be added to during the revising. For regulatory roles and ligands section, I think you should expand and provide similar amounts of detail as you do in the previous sections with the exception of the information above.

•	Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?

None of the information seemed to be mismatched or repetitive so I think there is no issue there. Especially since this article is very factual, as long as you stay factual with information regarding the section, there will not be any issues.

•	Does each section stand alone?

Each Of the sections can be displayed separately and stand on their own. The sections are not dependent on one another. There is a clear distinction between structure, signal transduction, regulatory roles, and ligands.

•	Is it neutral?

There is no persuasiveness in this article. Most of the article is factual so there is not any form of personal believes inserted into the article. The neutrality of the article adds to the professionalism very nicely.

•	Is everything cited?

Everything does seem to be cited. I just am not sure if the citing should go before or after the period so I would check on that.

•	Are there grammatical errors?

There aren't any grammatical errors that I had noticed. Maybe reorganizing some of the sentences that contain awkward pauses or too many commas could be helpful, but there isn't anything else.

•	What images would be useful?

Definitely, a picture of the receptor itself would be beneficial. Maybe also if there is a schematic diagram of the signaling pathway mentioned in the text try to add that.

•	All images are explained clearly

There are not any images.

•	Is it clear?

The purpose of this article is clear. The article describes PAR-1 and the types of things it does. The only hard part to follow is of all the acronyms or unfamiliar compounds.

•	Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

I would not say there is anything irrelevant here. It all seems to be stuff you would want to know about PAR-1. I don't know if there is much else to add here. Maybe you could include the origin of the discovery of PAR-1 or something if that information is available.

•	Scientific inaccuracy

None of the information presented stood out to me as being inaccurate or incorrect. The information seems to be pulled from reliable peer-reviewed articles and other pages.

Pardeep24 (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

-- •	Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

Yes the article flows well. Over all its sections are very clear and it is well organized.

•	Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?

More detail needs to be added. Some of the specific nouns, such as "thrombin" under structure section, need to be defined or linked to other pages the firs time they show up. For the pathyway section, maybe some more explanations or images could help the readers to understand better.

•	Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?

The information is not redundant. Everything looks good! Maybe consider add in a lead section? Just a brief summary of what the PAR-1 receptor is at the very beginning of this article.

•	Does each section stand alone?

Yes.

•	Is it neutral?

I think this article is very neutral.

•	Is everything cited?

Yes.

•	Are there grammatical errors?

Some of the longer sentences are complicated and a little bit hard to read, but overall I don't see grammatical errors.

•	What images would be useful?

Any image of the receptor protein or anything that can summarize/help the reader visualize the signaling pathway.

•	All images are explained clearly

There are no images.

•	Is it clear?

Yes. The article is very clear, although in some parts the protein names and pathway are difficult to track. Once the author expands/elaborates on those more I believe the article will be extremely clear.

•	Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

No.

•	Scientific inaccuracy

Information seems accurate to me. Aureliall (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)