User talk:Jemcc002/sandbox

Hi Jerel,

This is a great start to the first section of the Wikipedia project. I thought that your description of stem cells and their function was very clear. I think that you can add a little more detail about what was discussed in the review. I think that some more detail about what was known in 2013 will help you write the next section about the progress since the review. Don't forget to add a citation for the review. The only grammar issue that I saw was the sentence that began with "over time..." I think that you only need a comma after "over time" and not later on in the sentence. Overall, I think that this is a good start with a solid description about stem cells.

Sthra001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with Stephanie that your description of stem cells and their function is very clear and easy to understand. I think that you could maybe elaborate when you say that DNA damage is the cause of stem cell exhaustion. Tell what sorts of DNA damage are common to lead to this exhaustion. I also agree with Stephanie when she suggested to add some more from the Hallmarks review article because I think it would help readers understand why this is particularly important and how it influences aging. The fact that you have a good description of stem cells signifies that you are going in the right direction, so all I would say is just to keep continuing on that path.

Hakim10 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jerel,

I think that you have another good start to your second section. You have used a lot of resources and cover a wide range of studies concisely. I think you could expand upon what these studies did a little more. On top of stating their topic, I might also include some of their results. The first sentence, make sure you add "was written" after "...when "The Hallmarks of Aging." Also, just make sure that you cite every article you mention and finish or delete the last sentence where it says "These studies." Overall, I you have great sources and a great start, I would just expand a little more.

Sthra001 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This is a good start to this section. When you say "other pathways", I would maybe go into which pathways they are. I also think that you can add some more sources that you found for the annotated bibliography. More sources would definitely enhance the greater picture of what has been done since the Hallmarks paper. I agree with Stephanie that you need to elaborate more on the studies that you did use. Don't relies on the titles to tell what the study is and what conclusions were made from the data. Also, I think you need a citation for the 2015 study. Overall, good start and I think with a little more detail, you would be good. Hakim10 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)