User talk:Tomhoang18/sandbox/Week4Assignment

I looked over the article and I have a couple of notes. To begin with, the article is pretty dense. For somebody like me, who is more of a chemist than a biologist, it was a bit difficult to follow everything, so it might be better to take a bit more time to go over the basic elements of the relationship between growth and catastrophe. Additionally, The title of the section is Examples of Catastrophins, but it seems to discuss the way in which catastrophe is related to microtubule growth. I also noticed that there are a few grammar and spelling errors, so I would go through a proof-read the article to try to flush those out (for instance the first two sentences of the lead have some awkward wording and the first sentence of the examples of catastrophins section seems to be missing some more words after "microtubule's"). Otherwise, I think that the information covered and the sources provided were good.Gruskyd (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

More notes: This is good! Definitely better than the previous version. You use good, neutral language and don’t seem to be biased. In general your tone is “encyclopedic”.

This might not be necessary but just a note, I had some trouble following as it is a very specific area of research. It might be useful in the overview to explain how this fits into biochem / micro or why it is of more general importance.

I also agree about the density of it - it would be useful to break up the second section into more smaller sub sections. I also agree that the Examples of Catastrophins title seems off. Also, you talk a lot about catastrophe in general but not too much about catastrophin beyond the first sentence, potentially go into more detail about the protein itself.

One general note – I would be careful about the sources you are citing, you seem to have some references to journal articles. Make sure you are citing things that are more widely known.

Try to do some general spell checking – there are a couple of places where you have unnecessary words or weird phrasing: “without affecting promoting microtubule…” “ lead to decrease in catastrophe” “ increase the frequency” Anhill95 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to comments
Thank you for the comments everybody! They were super helpful. I am working to improve the articles.

Tomhoang18 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)