User talk:Jparkk/sandbox

I think a couple of things that might be helpful for this draft are to provide additional background on certain topics, and to elaborate on some less detailed areas. A possible solution for the arguments lacking background information could be to insert links to already existing Wikipedia articles. After reading, I am left with some questions, but this could be due to the fact that I have not read the rest of your group’s contributions to the article. For example, the first paragraph centers around PET, but does not really include the significance or relevance of Melveger’s studies on the molecule. Also, the sentence beneath the first paragraph seems out of place, so it might be helpful to explain to the reader why this is a problem, as it is also unclear what the correlation is (between the orientation of PET and what other factor?). The paragraph under the graph has a typo in the last sentence (“crstallinity “), and the last part of that same sentence should be written as “significant role in the…” instead of “significant role of the. . .” The topic sentence following this paragraph could be strengthened by adding more detail, since the way it is written now does not give the reader any information on the relevance or context of the experiment, relative to the other experiments mentioned. Additionally, beginning sentences with “so” seems slightly colloquial for a scientific article. Overall, I think you did a good job of putting together all of the evidence from the experiments—the wording in certain areas could be changed slightly so that the points you are trying to make are clear to anyone reading the article. --Luhrig (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)