User talk:Sejohnson1/sandbox

Midterm Peer Review by jmalysa
At the end of the first paragraph, you leave a hanging quotation and it was slightly confusing on first read. The use of the word "however" seems to indicate the quote is connected to the previous sentence, but the way it reads feels out of place. One way I would suggest rewording is: On the contrary, some physicians entirely doubted the validity of pseudocyesis, such as 19th century French physician Charles Pajot, who stated... Otherwise, the wording of the article is good and is reads well and seems to be well-corroborated by your sources. Might be a good idea to include more examples, such as the modern example you had at the end of the 2nd paragraph, but it wouldn't be surprising if historical examples are very hard to find. Jmalysa (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments

 * For the commentary I will assume this is an addition to False Pregnancy in humans.


 * I agree with Jmalysa, that perhaps some expansion, or other additions would be neccesary to connect some phrases with the rest of the text. I also find this issue with the first senstence about Mauriceau, which then jumps to causes of pseudocysesis.


 * "The symptoms of pseudocyesis are so close to those of true pregnancy" is slightly biased, and redundant given symptoms on the original article: "The symptoms of pseudocyesis are similar to the symptoms of true pregnancy and are often hard to distinguish from it."


 * I think overall this contribution has an interesting historic aspect, and you might want to look into how you could divide it into expanding the Symptoms section, as well as perhaps expand upon how psychogenic factors generate the condition.


 * I feel that this contribution arises from the distillation of a single source, and could become more powerful with other references added to it. Creatorjppl (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Final Peer Review by jmalysa
For the lead section, the original/revised versions are the same in your sandbox, so check if you pasted/labeled them correctly. Other than that, the History and Types of Chronobiotics sections look great so far. The History section is well-written and adheres to Wikipedia standards. However, it could definitely use more sources (only 1 source cited for that section). The Types of Chronobiotics section is well-cited and well-written, but it could use some more embedded links to other wiki pages such as 'serotonin', 'tranquilizer', etc. since this terminology might not be obvious to a first-time reader. Jmalysa (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Final Peer Review by Ellamarrero
"Just before melatonin was characterized in 1958, the pineal gland was robustly described." This sentence doesn't make a lot of logical sense -- I would start by saying that the pineal gland is the gland by which melatonin typically is secreted into the endocrine system, and was robustly described just before melatonin was characterized (if that makes sense?). Otherwise, I think the History section look great, and would echo the above point that some of the more bio-heavy terms could use some embedded links. Are there any images you could add to help further explain your point? Ellamarrero (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)