User talk:RuchenCAI/sandbox

•	Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

The structure seems to flow well. The different sections are well-organized.

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

More detail needs to be added.

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

I'm not super sure about the function of CD96 vs. interaction with CD155 sections. These two sections might contain overlapping information. Otherwise, the information is not redundant.

•	Does each section stand alone?

Again more detail needs to be added. From the structure they seem to stand alone.

•	Is it neutral?

The choices of citations seem quite neutral.

•	Is everything cited?

There is not much text but there is a citation reference list.

•	Are there grammatical errors?

No.

•	What images would be useful?

Yes, I believe an image of the CD96 will be useful.

•	All images are explained clearly

There are no images.

•	Is it clear?

Again there is not much text, but the structure seems clear.

•	Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

No irrelevant information seen. Probably need to expand on relevant information. But it looks like a good start!

•	Scientific inaccuracy

The sources and paragraph plans seem to contain accurate information.

Aureliall (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

•	Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

The way the article subheadings are constructed, there seems to be a logical flow.

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

Too little, there is no draft yet.

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

Not sure yet.

•	Does each section stand alone?

The sections are pretty independent and I think they can stand alone. They do not seem to depend on each other.

•	Is it neutral?

So far, it seems to be, but there's much more that needs to be added.

•	Is everything cited?

There is some cited information that I think will be mentioned in the text.

•	Are there grammatical errors?

No there are none so far.

•	What images would be useful?

A picture of the receptor could be very helpful or also a diagram that shows the ligand binding to the receptor.

•	All images are explained clearly

N/A

•	Is it clear?

There is not much to judge clarity.

•	Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

There is a lot of missing info, but it will be added soon I'm sure.

•	Scientific inaccuracy

No scientific inaccuracies seem to be in the paper so far. The cited list seems very reliable. Pardeep24 (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)