User talk:Msimm007/sandbox
Second Review:
Michelle, your paragraph structure still seems a little disjointed, like it's a list of facts as opposed to one idea flowing coherently into the next. There's not much exposition - some of the statements could use some supporting explanation. You still have two sources that don't qualify as appropriate for use on wikipedia. I think if you shop the technical writing a bit and fix your sources you'll be good to go.
Levifbaby (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Review of Michelle Simmons edits to the article "Proteinoplast" Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Msimm007/sandbox
Lead: it seems as though the edits have yet to be integrated into the article at large. The new section found at the sandbox page appears to contain content that would likely go into the middle of the article. There is no lead section in the new edits. Integration of the newly added information into the original article would improve the strength of the edits as a whole.
Content: the content of the edits is relevant to the article in question. Some sources are up to date, others are slightly older, or do not have reference entries that reveal their dates of publication. Some content is redundant with respect to the original article and should likely be trimmed. There are occasional grammatical errors, such as comma placement, that could be fixed for improved readability.
Tone and Balance: all content added is neutral scientific content. There is very little room for bias here, as the data is referenced and is assumed to be gleaned using high standards of scientific inquiry.
Sources and References: reference integrity seems to be a problem. Reference #1, Sciencedirect, is an information-aggregating forum that links to primary and secondary resources, but is not an appropriate resource in of itself. The information attributed to reference #1 in the edits is actually from a paper that Sciencedirect links to, and, as such, should be referenced itself for proper attribution. Reference #3 is inappropriately formatted, such that the publication date, although present, does not appear in the format preferred by wikipedia. Reference #4 is an informational website but does not reference primary or secondary literature. References need some significant shoring up to be appropriate for publication.
Levifbaby (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Added Rate of Living theory to sandboxMsimm007 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)msimm007