User talk:Robiso22/sandbox

Some Comments on it for You Is the web page suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?

It was a bit difficult to understand, even for someone who understands general cell biology like I do. But I get the feeling that I would have an easier time of it if I got to see your portion of the article in context of the whole thing. At the same time, I think the subject you're writing on (Role of GRIP1 in neuron morphology and cargo transport) is itself a rather esoteric subject, so I think you've done all right in making it as readable as possible to a general reader. I'll put it this way: if someone is reading your section and they complain that it was too technical for a normal human being to understand--they should probably reconsider why they're reading a section about GRIP1-assisted cargo transport in the first place. You don't look up that sort of thing to do some "light reading."

There are some terms you use that maybe you could explain a bit more, or provide links to if there are links within Wikipedia for them. For example, you talk about "adapter molecules," and I don't really know what those are. The same goes for "murine models." It would be helpful if you defined those for the reader.

Is there a logical flow to the page?

I think you could improve this area. The section title is "GRIP1's role in neuron morphology and cargo transport," and the first sentence starts off on the right foot--but after that it seems to skip over the actual role GRIP1 plays and just starts talking about what happens when we genetically alter GRIP1 expression. I realize that those experiments support the idea that GRIP1 is important in the cell, but I think it would be easier to understand if you started off talking about what exactly it does, and then got to what happens when we start messing expression.

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Like I said above, there were a few ideas I wish you would have gone a bit more into detail over, so feel free to make the section a little bit longer.

Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others?

Maybe just try talking a bit more about what GRIP1 does (or why you don't know what it does).

Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?

I think this refers to the outline that appears at the top of the page when you have multiple sections and subsections. Your page only has the one section, so nothing appears for you. As far as following the subject you set forth in your title, I think it does cover the material it says it's going to cover.

Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

For the most part, yes. I have listed a just a few terms that you could consider adding links to. They're not necessarily the most important words in the section, but it doesn't hurt to have links to them just in case somebody reading your article wants to see them. Here they are:

mutations dendrites neurons

Do the images add to the educational value of the article?

Yes. I think that was what first got me understanding what GRIP1 does, or at least what it contributes to.

Are the references relevant and integrated well into the article?

Yes. After each idea you present that seems like it should have some citation accompanying it, you got it--so I think you got that covered. Looks like you mixed in some new research along with some of the original research as well.

'''Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors.'''

It looks pretty well done. Can't find any big mistakes or anything.

There are a few typos/mistakes to watch out for: -In the explanation for the figure, it looks like activate should read activated. -The first sentence of the second paragraph was confusing to me...did you mean to rescued instead of reserved? Maybe I just am not used to that term. -Try making the d on Kd a subscript. -There should be a space after the 20 in 10-20nM.

Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of one section, one figure, and three references per team member)?

It does!

Jbryan13 (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)