User talk:Jmitch2693/sandbox

Peer Review P3 (Saebr1)

Major points

This article's organization is clear overall, and the addition will fit well within the microglia page. The second section (Role in affective disorders) has a clear structure and covers relevant points. Additional disorders could be added as needed by other editors. Subsection headings in the first section (Role of microglia in psychiatric disease) seem to overlap slightly - I'm not sure why "Schizophrenia" and "Microglial hypothesis of schizophrenia" are separate subsections. They could be combined, or synaptic pruning could be discussed first and then tied to causes/symptoms of schizophrenia. The treatment subsection is placed appropriately, after causes/symptoms.

The tone of the article is professional and encyclopedic. No opinions are presented as fact, and research findings and conclusions are included. I'm assuming that quotes will be taken out later; this draft includes several quotations that should be paraphrased in the final article. Information is provided in a concise manner, though several statements could be restructured for clarity. For instance, the depression subsection could be restructured to say "Deviation from microglial homeostasis is caused either by... Such deviation can lead to..."

Word choice is appropriate given the complexity of the article. However, some words should be simplified if possible. For instance, in the treatment subsection, "may alleviate" could be changed to "may slow." Similar changes could be made in other sections of the article - statements indicating causality or effect can be simplified so that there is a clearer relationship between microglia and disease. "Schizophrenia," "psychosis," "neuroinflammation," and similar technical terms could be linked to more detailed articles on those topics.

Minor points

Since this isn't the final draft, I'm not sure about spelling/grammar issues. Proofreading for sentence complexity may help with the final article. Several sentences include a lot of information separated with commas, but could be broken up into two sentences instead. Otherwise, spelling/grammar is good overall. The link to "Synaptic pruning" should be capitalized.

There are enough references to back up all information presented in this article. Again, some of the information is currently in quotes, and I'm assuming it will be paraphrased and cited in the final article. References are reliable, and citations are present for all new information presented.

Saebr1 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)