User talk:Shbau001/sandbox

I think the first step you should take in editing your sandbox is effectively separating your sections with headings such as: lead section, hallmark summary, and hallmark progress since 2013, in order to achieve better organization. Also it doesn’t seem like you have used all six of the sources you got from annotated bibliography, and I’m not sure if it is required to use every single source. When you cite your source ( Scialò, F., Sriram, A., Fernández-Ayala, D., Gubina, N., Lõhmus, M., Nelson, G., ... & Murphy, M. P. (2016). Mitochondrial ROS produced via reverse electron transport extend animal lifespan. Cell metabolism, 23(4), 725-734.), you state how ROS originally thought to increase aging actually has health benefits, maybe expand on what some of those specific health benefits are, and how those health benefits might contribute to extension of life. Overall, how you summarized the sources you cited was very informative and focuses in on the main idea of the paper, while connecting it to the core ideas you mentions in your lead section (or what looks like your lead section. It’s also really nice how you hyper linked the different model organisms, as well as metformin.

--Amberg11 (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Amber when she said that you should separate the two sections, the hallmark summary and the progress since 2013. I think you do a really good job of explaining the new research done and also how mitochondrial dysfunction differs between organisms and also which drugs are being investigated. I was also confused on what "respiratory complex 1 reverse electron transport protein" is. Maybe you could link other Wikipedia links to it to better explain it or something but as it stands, I can't understand. Also, this is a nitpicky thing but I think you need a comma when you say " the spice curcumin has" and between drug and Metformin. Overall, really good! Hakim10 (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence is somewhat vague, and maybe needs a little more of an explanation of what oxidative phosphorylation is. In general, this is where the lead section is supposed to be, therefore I would elaborate a little more on what the definition of mitochondrial dysfunction is, and maybe hints on how it relates to your article. You’re supposed to outline the importance of your first article in terms of your hallmark topic. Maybe you can use a few facts from the hallmark summary paper to help you develop the lead section.

You created a very good summary of the functions of the mitochondria and ETC for a person without a background in science. Also you have a spelling mistake in the word organelle., just to point out some grammar. Overall, its a very good start, especially since you summarize your article well, but I would just say the lead needs some more development.

--Amberg11 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have a good foundation explaining mitochondria and its function. I think that some more connection as to how mitochondrial dysfunction leads to aging would enhance your summary. I agree with Amber that the first sentence is a bit funny and needs more explanation but I can see where you are going. I do like your last paragraph where you talk about the efforts to "fix" mitochondrial dysfunction. Overall, I think this is a strong start to your summary and you are on the right path, in terms of what needs to be added. Just be a little nitpicky, you have a typo in your sentence about ROS (space is in the wrong place).

Hakim10 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)