User talk:Sthra001/sandbox
The first sentence of your progress section could be a little more engaging, and more appealing, and maybe if you list some specific “components of deregulated nutrient sensing” that were studied and more data was found on, it would be a better introduction to what core ideas you were going to discuss. I think you might want to expand more on each individual source you used, as you only have a sentence of two for each source, and from what I gather you are supposed to go a little but more in depth with the findings of each source. For example when you can go more in depth discussing the positive effects of dietary restriction in detail other than just generally extending life span, I think from what I have heard in the past it lowers body weight, increasing energy expenditure, etc. Maybe elaborate more on the benefits. In addition, you talk a lot about the FOXO pathway in your hallmark summary, and from your knowledge of this pathway and the further studies conducted surrounding this pathway I think it would be helpful to discuss more in depth what has been learned, since it is a pathway closely associated with changes to deregulated nutrient sensing. I think overall, expanding your ideas and giving more details will give a lot more substance to your progress section, but your organization of ideas is already there as a great foundation.
--Amberg11 (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I think your lead section is very good, and concise because you hint at the most important information from your article, but perhaps you should elaborate on what deregulated nutrient sensing is, especially in terms of pathways. Maybe define in simple terms exactly what a pathway is because you talk a lot about IIS pathway, and people without a scientific background might not know exactly what that means. Overall, the lead section has a good structure, but you could add a sentence or two to elaborate on your definition of deregulated nutrient sensing.
Otherwise, you did a good job of summarizing your article, and what results come of making alterations to the IIS pathway. However, you didn’t quote the article you are presenting, and from reading this it seems like you did use information from your article so I would put the citation of you presentation article somewhere in your summary, if you did get specific information from it. Overall, it seems like the information is presented in a chronological order, so that the reader can understand the progression of the information.
--Amberg11 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that you did an outstanding job stating all the important facts about your topic. I would suggest that you summarize the important parts because it is a lot of writing for a summary. I also do not see your lead section sentence. Ancor003 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Feedback for update since 2013: I like that your writing is very scientific. I would recommend that you give more background to your statements and findings (i.e. set up the experiment, methods, where are the researchers from, etc.). If you include more background and explain the implications of your findings, your section would be longer, thorough and complete. I would also look into ways that your hallmark relates to other hallmarks. Ancor003 (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)