User talk:Tkadali/sandbox

Peer Review - Tim Davis
Grammar check - added a couple fixes but otherwise looks good!  Can anything else be added? "pyruvate kinase is believed to have a role in cancer" - this could have an adjective in front of "role" to be more specific. What kind of role? Also it would be helpful to have a basic lead section that gives an introduction into pyruvate kinase for people who don't know much about the subject.  Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? Nope, I think it is consistent and clear.  Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? It is all relevant, but it could be organized in a different way to flow better. I will explain in later answer.  Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? Everything seems to be at least explained enough, except I think it would be more appropriate to replace some of the dense wordy and science heavy sentences with more intro and simpler content.  Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail It reads well, but is a bit too technical. Even as a student taking a class on this topic, some of it was a little dense and took extra effort to understand.  Does the organization make sense? Ie order of sections/content; content within the sections It could be helpful to organize it in a way that is more clear on where PK is doing something, versus the sections where something is being done to PK or involved with PK, if that makes sense. Each section right now feels a little detached from the previous, but it might just be hard to make this work with such a topic as pyruvate kinase.  Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat self-explanatory Each section is self-explanatory, but they could build on each other a bit more with transitions or different ordering.  Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused? Citations look solid.  Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? Yes, both unbiased and properly balanced.  Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? Nope! It mentions cancer, but without offering advice.

Davist090 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Deap Bhandal
Grammar check: No spelling or grammar mistakes were present on Tuesday 26, 2019.

Can anything else be added? '''As I was reading the article for the first time, I did have to look up some of the terminology. I did like how many technical phrases and words had links to Wikipedia pages that explained them in detail. Perhaps it would be better to add more of these links and include more background information to the sections to help out less informed readers.'''

Are there inconsistencies or is it too repetitive? '''There were no inconsistencies at the time I read the draft. It was not repetitive. In fact, I feel some concepts were not deconstructed enough.'''

Is content relevant to article? Is this content you would want to know about that topic? '''The content is relevant to the article and is what I would want to know if I searched Pyruvate Kinase. I personally would have wanted some additional information about its structure and more about the properties of the protein in physiological conditions as well.'''

Is everything explained enough? Are some things explained too much? Much of the information is quite technical however not much of it is deconstructed so I would recommend expanding on the technical details.

Reading level: too technical or not enough scientific detail? '''I did feel that most of the sections were quite technical without providing much background information. Perhaps it would be better (for novices reading the topic) to start out with less detail and build up the technicality towards the end of the section. The last sentence or two should sum up the section in a clear and concise manner.'''

Does the organization make sense (i.e. order of sections/content; content within the sections)? All content presented is under the correct labeled section and I do feel that the Pyruvate in Cancer section should be last, but I also recommend adding other sections (with less technical detail) in the beginning with much more basic information of Pyruvate Kinase.

Does the article flow well: one section builds on the other but each section is somewhat self-explanatory? '''The title of each section paints a good idea of its content so each section is somewhat self-explanatory, but they do not build on each other in a clear way. Some more transitions might be necessary.'''

Is everything cited? Are there enough references? Are any of the references overused? '''The information presented is cited and there are several references listed. Some references were used more than others, but this is expected and none were overused.'''

Is the article unbiased, and properly balanced? '''The article does not have any bias. The writer presents multiple cancer study results so it is properly balanced. Other sections are mainly objective and scientific.'''

Can the article be interpreted as medical advice? No medical is advice stated (does talk about cancer, but presents no advice).

Overall, the article draft could use some more work, but is a great start. D.Bhandal (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)