User talk:TinaYLi/sandbox

Cedombroski Peer Review

Is the article clear?

• For the most part, the article is clear and has a good narrative but there are a few places that could be simplified for the average reader:
  • The last sentence of the summary paragraph is a little complex (I had to reread it once to understand it). I would suggest addressing biofilms and quorum sensing separately, or switching around the phrasing
    • Something like "She studied inhibition of bacterial biofilms using botanical extracts"
  • It might just be me, but "necessitated" in the second sentence of Early Life and Education kind of breaks the flow of the sentence.
    • This could probably also be fixed by simply separating the amputation and MRSA infection issues into two different sentences
  • In the sentence mentioning her trip to Peru, I can't tell if she was interested in medical school but switched to ethnobotany or if she decided to specialize in it
    • If it’s the former, I would suggest writing "shifted her interest from medical school to ethnobotany"
  • What is a traditional medicine man? You could probably do away with mentioning the man and just say traditional medicine, or maybe say traditional healer?
  • Again, I think a reader would benefit from reading the last sentence of the Early Life and Education section in 2 sentences instead of 1

What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?

• Unless you want to add something relating to her work, I think the image you have right now is perfectly fine

Grammar

• In the second sentence I would say "her research focuses on" instead of "has focused" unless she is on some sort of break at the moment
• The sentences about her science fair project should have a comma after E. coli
• The sentence about her work with the blackberry plant would sound better as "this property" instead of "the property"
• You should probably italicize Staph aureus in your parenthesis about MRSA

Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?

• Everything seems relevant to me!

What additional content would be useful?

• People might come to her wikipedia page wondering about her personal life, so if you wanted to add something about her children I don't think it would be out of place, personally I don't think it would add much to the quality of the article though

Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?

• Yup! I think everything flows perfectly and it under the correct heading

Which topics are most interesting to expand on?

• I'd like to know what sort of results she has gotten with the extracts she has studied. How do they compare to Western treatments?

Wiki links: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?

• They all worked for me and are definitely appropriate
• Maybe consider adding links to the majors she studied?
• I would also link to traditional medicine in case people don't know the difference

Are the sources reliable?

• Source #6 doesn't open when I click on it!
• Besides that, I know you are allowed to use interviews so everything seems fine

Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?

• Yes

Are there additional sources that should be added?

• Unless you want to discuss more of her research, I would say its fine as-is

Does the article rely too heavily on one source?

• No, sources are evenly distributed throughout

Is there any close paraphrasing?

• No, the draft written by other authors has close paraphrasing

Is it accessible to a non-science audience? Too technical?

• It seems simple enough. Tough topics are explained and all relevant articles are linked

Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much?

• Quorum sensing is the only term I feel could use with a bit more explanation

Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way?

• Nothing seems biased to me
• There is no argument for/against traditional medicine vs western medicine

Is the lead section clear, concise, complete?

• Yes, it is a very good overview of who she is and what she is doing

Do the new additions fit with the old content? Should any of the old content be further edited?

• N/A

Is the article redundant?

• Nope, each section has new information that touches on topics briefly mentioned in the lead section

Is the article balanced?

• Yes, each section has the same amount of information covered

Cedombroski (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Shannon Peer Review

Is the article clear?

The article is generally clear and well-written. There are a few areas that could be improved by better phrasing though.

What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?

I think the current image is good. If you wanted to add any I think an image of bacterial biofilms would be most relevant.

Grammar

The grammar is good overall.

Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?

All the content is relevant and I don't think anything needs to be removed.

What additional content would be useful?

I think more scientific background on the areas relevant to Quave's research would be helpful. In particular, the quorom-sensing inhibiting activity is not clear and the Wikilink doesn't clarify this topic well.

Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?

The article is well-organized. I think adding her employment history would be pertinent in the biographical section. In the research contributions section you segue into her post-doctoral fellowship but this isn't mentioned in the biographical section. Where was her post-doctoral fellowship? How did she end up at Emory after that? What has she done at Emory?

Which topics are most interesting to expand on?

I think it would be interesting to add what practical results have come from her research and how these compare to traditional medicine.

Wikilinks: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?

The wikilinks work and are appropriate. I don't see any that need to be added.

Are the sources reliable?

The sources are mostly scholarly articles from reputable journals and new articles from established publications.

Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?

There are enough sources. I think the references should be reorganized however. The key papers section shouldn't have citations: they should be just the references as formatted in the reference list. See the "Further reading" section in the CD133 article for example.

Are there additional sources that should be added?

Maybe a link to her PhD thesis if it's available?

Does the article rely too heavily on one source?

No, it draws on several sources.

Is there any close paraphrasing?

The article appears to have been rewritten in the authors own words.

Is it accessible to a non science audience? Too technical?

The article is accessible to non-scientists, with the exception that the concepts of biofilms and quorom-sensing could be better/more clearly explained.

Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much?

See above. Biofilms and quorom-sensing could have a short overwiew when these are first mentioned.

Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way

The article is neutral and makes a point of assigning opinions on Western vs. traditional medicine to Quave when they are mentioned.

Is the lead section clear, concise, complete?

The lead section is good.

Do the new additions fit with the old content? Should any of the old content be further edited?

The article is new and has no old content to blend with.

Is the article redundant?

No, the article is well structured and not redundant.

Is the article balanced?

The article does a good job of addressing the interplay between Western and traditional medicine.

Slargman (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)