User talk:AMonocle/sandbox

Feedback

@AMonocle: Nice work on your draft.

There's a lot of important information on the existing KCNB1 article including {{infobox_gene}}, several footers and categories. As you update that article, make sure that existing information is preserved. If you're replacing sources, are you replacing them with better sources? Is any important information of links being lost? Remember that you aren't replacing the article wholesale, you're integrating your additions into an existing article.
Your second reference isn't properly formatted. You need to fix that.
References should appear immediately after the statements they support. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and there shouldn’t be any text after the last reference in a paragraph. A few of your paragraphs include unsupported material.
For biomedical topics, you need to make sure that your sources are WP:MEDRS-compliant. That means recent review articles whenever such articles exist. The findings presented in research articles are preliminary, and need to be considered in light of things like experimental design, statistical power of the analyses, and a whole lot of other things.
The Pharmacology section has several problems. "Currently" isn't meaningful in a Wikipedia article since they don't have publication dates and continue to evolve through time. You need to be clear when "now" is in this context. The phrase "preliminary studies suggest" shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article about a biomedical topic. If it's preliminary and only "suggestive" it's a very weak connection.
In this section, you also say "This is a desirable response..." Even though the outcome here is probably something we can all agree on as a good thing, the idea that it is "desirable" is a value judgment, and one that should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. It also seems rather preliminary, and Wikipedia articles should not be commenting on preliminary therapeutic tools. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

Per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence of an article should concisely define what that subject is about. Your current draft does not contain a lead sentence where as the current live version of this article does. This lead sentence needs to be restored.

As discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear in the lead sentence that these Gene Wiki articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

<recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]