User talk:TSto1/sandbox

Hey TSto1, this is KwahawkYoang. I read over everything in your sandbox just now--I haven't looked at the links. I have a couple of things to say, but it probably isn't anything new: If you wanted to do a little more on the page, you could link some of the words (like M2 helices) to their own Wikipedia articles. A picture would be nice, but I'm very aware of how hard it is to find usable pictures that work for the policies we need to follow. The wording in the second paragraph seemed like it was implying that the α-Leu 9’ was already introduced earlier in the article, so people will know what it is--is that true? If it's in another sandbox somewhere, great! If not, it would stand some explanation here. Okay, I'm looking at the clock and deciding it's time to go to bed, but if you're still here, thanks for looking at my thoughts. I'll get the official review done soon. Stay awesome!--KwahawkYoang (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is late. I had comments ready to pass on, but I didn't notice that your sandbox had been updated until Tuesday morning. Great work, by the way! I typed everything up in OpenOffice, so I'm just going to paste it in here:

//Note: I've been looking for Queensarms5's changes so I can have a more complete picture of what the page will look like—I haven't found it, so if my suggestions are already addressed by her work, please disregard them.

Impressions: 1. I love the chart you've created! It explains the basics of family organization more clearly than two paragraphs of words could. 2. The explanation of the family and which channels conduct cations and which channels conduct anions is great. 3. The expanded page, with all of its new information is much more friendly for someone with little experience or prior knowledge of ion channels. 4. Explaining that a lot of the knowledge we have is built on examination of Torpedo Marmorata nAChR channels is just the sort of cool thing that I love seeing in Wikipedia pages, because it gives perspective, instead of just information. 5. Adding an explanation of gating, both how it keeps things out and how it keeps them in, was a really good idea.

Issues as of 11-19: 1. Your sources are coming up multiple times at the bottom. The only way I found to fix this is to, when editing the page, use the cite tab to cite a source in-line and give it a reference name. After that, when citing that same reference again, use the “named references” clipboard icon next to the templates pull-down menu. 2. There is a feeling of redundancy from having a section labeled “Structure” and another labeled “Pore structure and gating.” After reading through, I'm assuming the first one covers receptor structure and the second one, the pore. I recommend making it more clear. 3. The introduction paragraph explains that these receptors “possess a characteristic loop” of amino acids and Cysteine residues, and then the last paragraph mentions both that Cys-loop, and a “loop 2” which has not been introduced. What is loop 2? 4. It would be good to have the “hydrophobic girdle” explained, too. 5. The last sentence in the second paragraph, the one about the M3-M4 linker is important, showing how the channel is anchored to the cytoskeleton, but it felt lonely and out of place in the original article, and it still feels that way. I admit though, that I read the abstract for the article it references, and from that paragraph, it didn't look like an extremely strong conclusion.

Keep up the awesome work, and good luck presenting tomorrow! KwahawkYoang (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)