User talk:Sazfar21/sandbox

Grammar check - made a couple small corrections, also look out for passive tense! There are a few sentences and phrases starting with "it" that use passive tense.  Can anything else be added? Possibly more specificity on more vague like the second one in the implications section - here your topic's relation to cancer could be better described earlier, instead of just saying "involved". Also you could possibly add to the lead section, depending on how it transitions into your sections that you will add after it.  Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? Nope!  Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? The content is relevant and clear.  Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? I think it is explained well, except for a little organizational issue, which I will address in the organization question. I also think that the images are good and will add to the article well.  Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail. Slightly too technical. There could be a few more sentences here and there that clear things up in more simple terms.  Does the organization make sense? Ie order of sections/content; content within the sections? The organization makes sense, except I would suggest subheadings under the implication section since it reads a little too long. This could help the flow of the article as well, and provide space for more images.  Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat self-explanatory? Yes, it flows well, and will work even better with a little more organization of the implication section.  Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused? There seems to possibly be a source missing for the "Arf" information.  Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? Yes!  Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? Nope, there is mention of cancer, but it is not written in a way that could be construed as advice.

Davist090 (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Grammar check - No grammatical errors as of February 26th

Can anything else be added? Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? It is not repetitive

Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? Yes, this is information that I feel would be relevant if I was researching the topic.

Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? The first paragraph has good detail and hits on relevant points. I think it’s good that there is an entire section dedicated to cancer. The second paragraph touches on a lot of points and might need more explanation or maybe you can link to other relevant articles. Perhaps the graph can still label what 1 and 2 are.

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? Yes; yes; no

Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? Yes

Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? No

Tkadali (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)