User talk:AYang99/sandbox

1.Does the article flow well? Well Organized? Yes. The article is organized well into different sections. However, the sections are not clearly defined but are named rather generically (i.e. Blood Glucose, or Nitrogen-Containing Molecules). They do not specify the importance or relation of that topic to the broader concept of “Steady State.” For flow, citations are not needed after every single sentence, but actually after the passage of which the reference is being used. All the citations after each sentence actually hinders the reader. For example, [1] in the paragraphs under “Article Rough Draft” should be after each paragraph, not after each sentence. Steady state is explained well, as the article moves from overall description to a more specific definition of energy carriers which then play an important role in different pathways.

2.Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little? The level of detail is somewhat appropriate. However, the way that it is written is not with the appropriate scientific jargon. The detail is generalized in several areas and can lead to oversimplification of topics. For example, the description of blood lactate levels was lacking in certain areas and molecules.

3.Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? As aforementioned, the content was well organized. But there was some repetition in wording. For example, for the Blood glucose and Nitrogen Containing Molecule sections, for each paragraph, the beginning sentences were very similar.

4.Does each section stand alone? Yes. The sections do not overlap in information. However, more detail should be included.

5.Is it neutral? Somewhat. Several times throughout the article, a statement will be made and then a simple example will be given in parentheses. However, this example seems irrelevant and simplified compared to the topic being subscribed. This problem may be alleviated by changing the writing to fit a more scientific tone, perhaps.

6.Is everything cited? Yes. However, please fix format.

7.Are there grammatical errors? No. But structure of sentences could be fixed. For example, this sentence: “In one step of the glycolysis pathway catalyzed by PFK-1, the equilibrium constant of reaction is about 1000…” This should be worded different. “About 1000” is incorrect. It should be “approximately 1000.” This is just a small example of a larger problem.

8.What images would be useful? Images of the energy pathways. Examples of steady state systems with graphics. For example, in lecture, we had a graphic at how blood glucose is maintained in the body at steady levels. Something similar to this would be good.

9.All images are explained clearly No images present currently.

10.Is it clear? Yes. Understanding the information present was very easy. This article is clear to understand.

11.Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? No. All the information is related to what a “steady-state system” is.

12.Scientific inaccuracy No scientific inaccuracy. Just sentence structure could be improved.

Overall, very good article. Easy to read, clear, cited, and good explanations. Just a few suggestions: fix some of the wording and the citations and add images and you should be good to go! Hope these suggestions help!. Biochem153aj (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Review

• Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

decently organized

• Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?

it's solid, but many things need to be defined or at least have links included

• Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?

yes

• Does each section stand alone?

yes

• Is it neutral?

yes

• Is everything cited?

yes

• Are there grammatical errors?

a few

• What images would be useful?

maybe images of pathways mentioned in article

• All images are explained clearly

n/a

• Is it clear?

fairly

• Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

info about principles of reaction spontaneity would be very useful

• Scientific inaccuracy

maybe

Since I find the rubric inadequate, I have made suggestions directly to the draft and signed them as -AZ.

Azhou0 (talk)