User talk:Pardeep24/sandbox
Reviewer A
Does the article flow well? Well Organized? Flow is fine. Perhaps breaking down sections into multiple sections or incorporating subsections would be helpful. For example, split the “Origin and Structure” section into “Origin” and “Structure” sections.
Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little? The level of detail never seems to be overwhelming or underwhelming.
Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? The content is never redundant and appears to be in the appropriate location.
Does each section stand alone? Each section is easily understood without having to read the other sections.
Is it neutral? No statements seem to be biased. The author keeps a factual tone and appears to have used a variety of sources.
Is everything cited? Most information in the article is cited. Here are a few bits of information that you might want to cite: 1. Later on in 1901, Greig-Smith coined the name “levan” based on the levorotatory properties of this substance in polarized light. 2. In plants, the vacuole is where fructan production occurs. 3. Levan is synthesized in archaea, fungi, bacteria, and a limited number of plant species.
Are there grammatical errors? Fixed a few small grammatical errors. I did not detect any large grammatical errors that caused lack of understanding.
What images would be useful? Images of branched and linear versions of polymers would be very useful. Possibly include images of natto and products utilizing levan.
All images are explained clearly Not applicable since no images were included.
Is it clear? Maybe include some hyperlinks so concepts can be explained outside of the article. Besides that, the text/information is understandable.
Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? There are no glaring gaps in content. If more information could be included, it would be up to the editor to decide. There does not appear to be any irrelevant information.
Scientific inaccuracy No obvious scientific inaccuracy was noted while reading. However, I am not familiar with the enzymatic pathways in question, so inaccuracies may be present.
Mkoger (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Reviewer B
Does the article flow well? Well Organized? Yes, the article flows well and is well organized.
Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little? Yes, the level of detail is appropriate.
Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? Yes, content is appropriately divided into sections. One suggestion would be splitting “structure” and “origin” into different subcategories and adding a short introduction to the article.
Does each section stand alone? Yes, each section can stand alone. Maybe change “as will be discussed later on” in the second paragraph and replace with something like “see Real World Implications”. Also, maybe delete “as mentioned earlier” in the third paragraph.
Is it neutral? Yes, no bias detected.
Is everything cited? Yes, everything is cited appropriately.
Are there grammatical errors? There are very minor grammatical errors that can fixed easily. For example, in the sentence “The beta 2,6 linkages of levan allow it to be soluble…”, a semicolon may be better in front of “however” instead of a comma. Also, in the sentence “one of the reasons levan is able to be used…”, there is an extra “is a” before “fulfills”.
What images would be useful? Images of the different structures of levan that are discussed will be helpful.
All images are explained clearly No images at the moment.
Is it clear? Yes, the article is very clear. Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? The sentence about natto may be irrelevant, but if you’re trying to emphasize that levan is found in a superfood then I think it’s fine. Other than that, everything is clearly relevant.
Scientific inaccuracy No scientific inaccuracy was detected while reading.