User talk:Whatdoidohaha/sandbox

Feedback
Nice work on your article draft. Some things that could still use improvement

A Wikipedia article is supposed to start with a lead section, which is basically a summary of all the major points of the article. Most people who are going to read what you wrote will never get past the lead - in fact, a lot of them will probably just read the snippet that Google includes on the top right of their search results.

Your first sentence is on the right track, though the language might be daunting to the average reader. The second sentence though probably doesn't belong there. Instead, you should try to capture the essence of the rest of the article. Anything that's worth creating a whole section about should be represented somehow in the lead. You should also consider including anything that has a paragraph dedicated to it.

You should continue the rest of the article in a similar fashion. Again, most people don't read very far into a section or a given paragraph, so the main point should be made right away.

After that, you want to think about answering two questions: What is it, and why was it proposed. These should either be your first section after the lead, or the first two. You also need some relevant background, because this is a fairly advanced topic. You might want to consider something like this:

Now you need to go on to explain what these words mean. Tell the story (very briefly) of what's going on. Your target audience here probably knows the basics of gastrulation, but you need to make it accessible (through links to other articles) to a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't know, or doesn't really remember much about what the covered in a basic biology class 10 years ago. Think about including some diagrams - Commons is likely to be a good starting point. Keep in mind that people don't want to have to work too hard for their knowledge.

After you've gotten through the "what" and "why" section, you need to get into the evidence. A lot of what's in your current "evidence" section could be split into the previous section. The "Consequences" section is probably OK. You need to be careful though with the Controversies section. For starters, it's worth considering whether you can weave them into the rest of the article itself. I'm not a fan of separating out controversies because it removes them from context and tends to make them seem more important or less important than they really are. So give that a little thought. The other issue is that they shouldn't be given "undue weight". Is this hypothesis controversial? Right now you're dedicating more than a third of the article to controversies. Is that a fair representation? Is it significantly overweighting or underweighting how controversial this hypothesis is? Doing either of those inserts subtle bias; you should try to avoid that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)