User talk:Znsherman/sandbox

Zach's Peer Review: After my first reading of your article, I wondered how it is possible that some gametes exist as triploids. I think that the mechanism to form these type of cells and their maintenance could be interesting new sub-headings for your article. These could allow you to dive into the science more and give your article more context about what is known and what isn't known about diploid-triploid mosaicism. Also, I think it would be interesting to discuss how the symptoms are known to arise from an individual having triploid cells that make up their body. One last thing that I think could add to the article would be a section that discusses well-known cases or the discovery of diploid triploid mosaicism. These kind of additions can really give readers perspective about where the disease as a whole stands today and it will likely make them remember the article more clearly as well. In contrast, your article seems to have a good and understandable header, appropriate citations, and a neutral viewpoint that doesn't seem to attempt to sway individuals towards certain ways of thinking. One more small thing to consider is the structure of the article. After reading your heading, I found myself immediately wondering how it happens. Maybe organizing it in a way that you could go into explaining its mechanism after your header would make it flow a little more clearly than diverting to the symptoms. Either that, or you could reorganize the header to lead into your symptoms, which is the current structure that you have now. All in all, it looks like the article is coming together nicely Zach.

Steve

Peer Review of Mosaic Article
Zach,

The article you are currently working on has a good flow, structure, and relevant/reliable sources. Further additions to the article could follow Steve's advice, and additionally, the expansion on the underlying science could be a relevant and useful addition. More primary literature references could be useful as well; for example, a recently published review of the disease would not only provide further context to the article, but also help guide future readers to reliable data.

I believe your work is quite acceptable up to this point, and look forward to seeing future additions.

Loganbays (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I would advise linking words like homo sapiens, fibroblasts, syndrome, kayotype etc. to their own wikipedia page in case someone reading this has little knowledge on those subject areas. This subject is difficult to understand without a little background so I'm sure readers will know what those terms are, however I still think it is a good idea to offer the other sources just in case. I agree with going more into the science of the disease, like what it alters physiologically that results in all of those symptoms. Maybe incorporate more about the testing and how it is diagnosed so that the mechanism of action of the disease is more easily understood.

Tmmulkey (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)