User talk:The Shabang/sandbox

Peer Review

Your sources seem good, the dates are varied so they aren't all from the same year and instead from multiple different years to help solidify what you're saying in wikipedia DKitch21 (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources look great! Jimmyjohnslaser (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, guys! The Shabang (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over your sandbox, and you have a lot of good information here that will give you a lot to work on and insert into your wiki page. My only concern would be that there seems to be a lot, are you sure you aren't overloading yourself? like it seems to be a lot of new sections and information you are going to have to weed through. if it only looks intimidating and actually isn't too much for you, then go for it, but don't bite off more than you can chew. DKitch21 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox looks amazing, it is very well organized, well done. I think there are a lot of things you can hyperlink though that are already on wikepedia including PC, G protein-coupled receptors, membrane trafficking, and signal transduction. I think you should check whats already on Wikipedia so you don't have repeat information that's already there. Keep up the great work. Jimmyjohnslaser (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to your peer review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The%20Shabang/Phospholipase_D1/Jimmyjohnslaser_Peer_Review?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review Jimmyjohnslaser (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I acted according to feedback but forgot to say here that I did so, so thank you!

@DKitch21, you make a good point; do you think it's OK to have several shorter sections or might it appear better to mash them all into one general section?

@The Shabang I think how you set it up currently is really well done! It's easy to read and the shorter section provide well written info for the general reader. If you wanted to and if there is information in your sources, you could add second paragraphs that have more technical language but better describe and explain your topic. Also - I think using the Wikipedia citation link would be better as once you set it up it is extremely easy to link your sources and for readers to see which source this info is coming from - of course you could be planning on doing this when you insert this into the actual page. All in all, this looks really well done and very well sourced! good job! DKitch21 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DKitch21, That's a good reminder about the Wikipedia citations! I ended up using the author names as shown in my sandbox to help me select the correct citation when uploading to the article. The Shabang (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmyjohnslaser, based on your comment, I hyperlinked tons of terms in the existing article as well as my additions - it was a great reminder! I need to make sure I put a note under each heading to the main article for each section title. As for your peer review submitted at 18:34 UTC, it's very thorough, so thanks! I've read it and am still working on implementing several of the points made. The Shabang (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shabang The image you add is clear, I love the arrow to really point out where hydrolysis is occurring, well done. I agree with @DKitch21 your organization with short sections and clear headings are perfect. Your sources also looked good, they were relevant to your topic and provide more information for those interested. Great job and good luck with your paper! Jimmyjohnslaser (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]