User talk:Sarickson/sandbox

Grammar check - There are no grammatical errors

Can anything else be added? Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? To the new section, maybe you could add the relevance of her work to show how it might’ve impacted science.

Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? Yes

Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? No, the level of detail is appropriate

Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail - Reading level is appropriate.

Does the organization make sense? Ie order of sections/content; content within the sections - Yes

Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat selfexplanatory - Yes

Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused? There are no inline citations yet.

Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? Yes

Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? No Tkadali (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Peer Review- Sazfar21 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Grammar check

•	Made a few changes here and there; they should be in the edit history. Note that I only modified the sandbox and your draft; if there are grammatical errors in the main article, I did not do anything to them.

•	Can anything else be added?

•	The section “Work with purified enzymes” will definitely be better with your addition. However, it still seems generally really short and underdeveloped as its own section. I personally feel like it would be easier to either integrate it into a general section discussing her work or to find out what her purpose was in isolating those various enzymes to add to that section and develop it further. Another small thing I would suggest is perhaps seeing if the article about her military service mentions why she went into it. The section is short at the moment and since it is pretty unique to see someone with a powerful interest in science and research go into service, finding out a little more about the process (ideally her motivations but really just any other info you find) would be pretty great. •	Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive?

•	It is fairly consistent in its discussion of Moyle’s works. It’s actually sort of the opposite of repetitive since each study is basically touched upon without much further discussion. Repetition isn’t something you need to worry about, but it’d be awesome if you went into details of any potential implications of some of the studies or any motivations. The section you came up with (mitochondria) does a good job of listing motivations, so I would see if you can pull something similar with the purified enzymes and the other studies.

•	Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic?

•	The mitochondria section is very relevant to her work and is definitely something I want to know about. I feel like the military service bit is kind of out of nowhere; it is generally a pretty important part of someone’s identity, but it feels kind of unnecessary unless more details are around (I see you plan to find more details, which may make it more relevant, but I’ll leave my point here just in case). There is a lot of relevant content that seems to discuss her work with others, which is great, but I would find it especially interesting to find stuff on her independent projects if you are looking to expand the piece.

•	Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much?

•	As I mentioned above, the main issue is that most things are underexplained. Aside from your own new section, if you plan to fully revise the article, some of the other studies could use more detailed additions. If you only plan on modifying your own new addition further, then perhaps adding implications of the study (generally the stuff usually found in the discussion section of the articles) may help explain why those studies even mattered.

•	Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail

•	It was understandable with a decent amount of detail in most places. It did get a bit overly technical in your new section on mitochondria with stuff like quotients of translocation, since I personally have no clue what that means. I’m also pretty sure I didn’t understand that calcium porter bit; if you could either use less technical terms or expand on the present terms a bit, that could help. The other sections generally already seem to have a good balance of technicality and readability.

•	Does the organization make sense? Ie order of sections/content; content within the sections

•	Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat selfexplanatory.

•	The article flows decently well. I still feel like the military paragraph seems out of place among the other sections and would be best integrated into the introduction or something, but otherwise, the science stuff doesn’t really need to be in a specific order and it seems pretty coherent in its current setup. There isn’t really anything building on anything else but I also don’t think there usually would be in this kind of article (unless the studies were in a certain order and said order was essential, but none of them really sounded like that). The article seems to overall follow a very loosely defined chronological order since most of her early life is at the start of the article with later studies near the end, but again, there is minimal info on the military segment so I can’t be sure that fits in chronologically.

•	Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused?

•	Though the actual built in references aren’t present, there are a number of spots that say cite so it seems like everything is cited already. I actually can’t tell if some references are overused due to the (cite) rather than the article name. Each subject seems disparate enough that the references are used once or twice each, but it was hard to be certain without the references already present. With regards to the number, a few more references couldn’t hurt; I counted about 6 spots that said “cite” and saw 4 unique sources in the bibliography of the user page (there were 5 but one was listed twice), and since extra development would be beneficial anyway finding a few more sources would probably be good.

•	Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced?

•	Yea. Pretty much only the facts and accomplishments are discussed with a very neutral tone overall. Seemed overall balanced and objective, sticking mostly to facts.

•	Can the article be interpreted as medical advice?

•	No. It seems to avoid medical implications very well.

Sazfar21 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)