User talk:Ancor003/sandbox
Hi Andres! Great job with your section! I really like it! It's very nice and easy to follow! I think in the second line of your second paragraph you want to say defects rather than effects. But other than that I don't see any other errors! Tara
Hello! I think your summary really grasped the most important points of the 2013 article, Andres. The only thing that caught me off guard upon my initial reading of your work was that it felt a little disjointed with the two separate sections. I think the sections are related enough that they don't need to be boldly separated by subtitles and bullets, but rather a nice transition may make it flow better, in my opinion. Tara, however, may disagree; she seemed to enjoy your method and found it easy to follow!
Just one minor fix, in the third sentence switching an "as" to an "are" where you say "of the cell as (are) known as"... and if you were to do this the phrasing sounds slightly redundant in the following sentence where you say "laminopathies are known". You could maybe say "are shown" and then site the journal? Brihite (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment on the updated research section
editHey Andres, So the sentence you have up is definitely a good start! I am not sure if you will be adding more and this is just the initial work. But, my understanding is that, the follow up section should have a brief summary of the papers (you used in the proposal). So I think you need to elaborate more on the individual researches more, then just making a overall general summary. Best of luck! Taraaaala (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Andres, You section looks fantastic! I really love the way you have everything organized! I just have a few minor notes for you though. In the second paragraph I would suggest adding "in" between result and major, "when you say their mutations can result major phenotypic"... or change the wording to cause instead of result. Another thing I noticed is that you really love the phrase "it is key to understand..." I like it too, however, sometimes I feel the phrasing is a bit awkward, and its overuse feels redundant. Hit up thesaurus.com for some similar lead ins that mix it up! Other than a few other minor grammatical and tense errors, you have a really great summary going! You do a really good job of explaining all the necessary things, but I think linking your paper to other wiki pages will give the reader that extra help they might need if they don't know what a nucleus is. Again, this looks really good Andres! Brianna Brihite (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Andres, I agree with Bri! Your section looks really good! I had few minor questions/ suggestions. Is the last bolded sentence the end of your section or will you add more under that section? Also you use a really long quote. I am not saying it's wrong. But I would definitely check in and make sure that there's no limit on the length of quote you can use. Also I think certain things you can elaborate a little more on. Like I have heard of farnesyl but really don't know what it is. So either consider linking it to another page or if no such page exists, just write a little description in parenthesis. These are only suggestions.But overall, it looks really good! Best of luck!!! Taraaaala (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)