User talk:Carokim
| This user is a student editor in Northeastern_University/ENGW3307,_Advanced_Writing_in_the_Sciences_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Carokim, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review from Victor
[edit]Hi!! Here are some comments: I know for my article, I'm probably more guilty of this then you are but: needs a bit of work. I think History should go up and be the first section of this article. You keep mentioning the university of the source you cite, but I doubt you really need to for Wikipedia. I think it'll be very helpful to use more links that connect to other parts of wikipedia. I can talk to you in person about more comments. :)
--VictorZzzzz (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree on moving History up. Much more common to have History section near end of article. What outranks when. David notMD (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review from Brian
[edit]Overall, I liked your article. Certain things were defined, especially terms that are unfamiliar to the public like in situ. In addition, there were external links provided when necessary, which helps a reader go somewhere if further information is needed. Also, a picture was provided for this article. In terms of improvement, I think more external links should be used especially for scientific terms; there were some terms that did not have external links. Also, I think externally linking the advancements under that section would be cool to learn more about what is going on. In the immune response section, externally linking a general page about how an immune system responds may help readers understand it more in depth. For the valve section, pros and cons of the biological or synthetic valves may be helpful. One suggestion in something I learned recently in class is maybe talk about 3D printing under the synthetic section. All in all, I think your article so far is great, these minor things that I stated may just help readers learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yangbr (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Heart pumping animation
[edit]Yes, this file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year 2017, but in the context of your article, I personally found it distracting, and more to the point, not relevant to heart valve replacement. I moved it to the Talk page in case other editors disagree with me and want to return it to the article. David notMD (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (Tissue engineering of heart valves) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Tissue engineering of heart valves.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Nice job on the article, keep up the good work.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Onel5969 TT me 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
[edit]
|
Hi Carokim! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|