User talk:Oscarjuez/sandbox

section 1
blah Oscarjuez (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your blah Oscarjuez (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Article choice
Looks good! --Katbartlow (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments on your start-class article
HI Oscar,

Overall, the article is very informative and well-prepared. Just be careful with your language, it's well-written now in journalism/news articles style but not in wikipedia/encyclopedia style. Pay attention to your last sections on Tools and Application and Conflict of interest and Patent. The information is important but it's pretty much written like a news article now (Also, what does IBC stand for?).

For comparison between Cas 9 and Cfn1, be careful not to include your bias here. I think it's important to objectively compare mechanism of Cas9 and Cfn1 without making any statement about which one is better. There is also repetitive information on the comparison now (I don't think you need to talk about it in the mechanism section."

Some subjective languages in the Structure section: "unique," "features don't end here."

Nice table :). Make sure that your images show too. Nhidinh.l (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Kat's comments
You have included a wealth of information on this topic. This article has the potential to be very useful to students attempting to learn more about CRISPR mechanisms, but you need to be careful that the article remains accessible to the general public. I'd also echo Nhi's points about making sure your article is written in encyclopedia style. Also, please take care to cite your sources.

I am very worried about your use of block quotes and pull quotes in the article. You should be aiming to summarize and synthesize portions of the different articles you are using, rather than quote extensively from individual articles. This is inappropriate at best and bordering on plagiarism at worst.

Finally, you seem to be relying heavily on blog posts and press releases as sources for this article. When choosing your sources, please think critically about what constitutes a reliable source and which sources may be biased. Some of your sources are excellent, some of them potentially-dubious.

Good job on your first draft! -- Katbartlow (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a truly excellent and comprehensive article. I hope that you will revise the existing page.

My major criticisms are:

1) towards the end of the article, you begin using speculative language which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.

2) sometimes you use some idiomatic expressions which are a bit informal - watch your tone!

3) it might be helpful to include pictures of the structure of Cpf1 vs. Cas9 if you can find those images on PDB or another public resource. Katbartlow (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)