User talk:Xena741/sandbox

Peer Review
Is the article clear?

Overall, the article can use some sub-division. The introductory paragraph could be shortened as well, and the information could be distributed under different subheadings make it easier for people to get information about a particular topic they might be looking for in the page. For example, the protein structure could be put under a different sub-headings such as Structure.

'''What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?'''

There are not any images in the article currently. But the helpful one would be an image of the peptide sequence, and a table which has the information about the molecular mass, and formula which is presented in the article. Also, the images of phenypressin might itself improve the quality of the page.

Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?

The content provided is relevant to the topic and is provided enough detail to understand what the topic is.

'''Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?'''

The information is presented in an organized way, but do require some subheadings to make it flow better and have a better visual organization.

'''Wiki links: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?'''

Yes, all the wiki links are working. The article could definitely use several other wikiklinks such as different types of chromatography, different species family names, and different kangaroo names.

Are the sources reliable?

Yes, most of the sources are published articles which are fairly reliable.

'''Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?'''

Yes, there seems to be more than enough sources and one can see all the information cited.

'''Does the article rely too heavily on one source? Is there any close paraphrasing?'''

Most of the article seems to be the author language and close paraphrasing does not seem to be happening here in the article.

Is it accessible to a non science audience?

Most of the articles presented are accessible to the audience

'''Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much? ''' The article does have scientific terms used such as the types of chromatography which could use an introductory explanation of what it is. The rest of the article is fairly simple language, although because of the content the person reading might need a little scientific background to understand what the article is talking about.

'''Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way'''

It is a purely scientific article, so it is written in a neutral tone. There are no opposed opinions that are to be presented in the article.

Faizanwar08 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Faizan Anwar

Peer Review 2
You are off to a great start! It seems like you could break this one large paragraph down into a few separate sections. Towards the beginning, you discuss how this hormone was identified by scientists. Later, you say that more work needs to be done to determine differences between the hormones. You could possibly develop this into its own section, and talk about the different techniques scientists use (aka amino acid composition, chromatography, Amberlite CG-50, paper chromato-electrophoresis). Otherwise, I'm not sure if it's necessary for you to include. As you complete your final draft, it might be helpful to rearrange some of the sentences after you create an outline of the different sections.

It seems that the main idea of your article is based around the function and presence of phenypressin in marsupials. Consider specifying that in one of your section titles. Lastly, I would think about including some images in your final draft. For me, the first idea that comes to mind is the structure of phenypressin and other hormones you discuss in the article.

Great job!

-David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dssalven (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)