User talk:Clarker1
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Clarker1! I am The ed17 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
follow up on your review
[edit]See comments for you on Mount St. Peter Church talk page. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi! I'd be happy to peer review protein allergy and will get started on it as soon as I can. Jhfortier (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is already a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Protein Allergy/archive1 - moving thew page broke the link to this, but I reviewed it and fixed it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Clarker1, I saw your GAN nomination of this article. No disrespect intended, but it's simply not ready for nomination yet. If your check out the good article criteria, you'll see that there should be no major tags (like the expansion tag currently at the top). Other problems: the sections "Protein structure", "protein folding", and "How a protein works" do not belong in the article; web site used as sources should be put into citation templates rather than bare urls; there's problem with the layout: the tables are awkwardly placed, and too many sections are short one- or two-sentence "paragraphs" that should be merged together, or better yet, expanded. The topic is vast, and well-covered in the scholarly literature, so reputable secondary sources should make up the bulk of your citations. I hope this doesn't discourage you, but as it stands, the article is a candidate for a "quick-fail"; it's probably better to withdraw the candidate and work on it some more. I would be more than willing to assist or answer any questions you might have. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)