User talk:Slargman/sandbox
Peer review for your trajectory inference draft: -your lead is clear and concise -not all statements you make have citations - double check all your information has citations -you link minimal spanning tree several times - one time is probably enough -overall your article is very detailed and well organized, but because the concept is pretty theoretical it might be useful to include example graph outputs for each computational method/software etc - define tscan? -it seems you have plenty of sources and they are well used Safors (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is very clear and uses language that has a good balance of academic vocabulary and easy language. The article is well organized and is easy to navigate. There are definitely enough citations and they are correctly formatted. Overall, the wiki article did not rely heavily on one article, rather it was evenly distributed. The article was lacking images and I think could use a few on what trajectory interference looks like and how it works with a single-cell transcriptomics workflow. Explaining what exactly is meant by methods and software would be helpful to my understanding.
I was a bit confused on how many sources there were and if all those were used in your draft? Some statements don't have a direct citation and all statements should have one to validate what you are saying. Overall, the citations and articles you used look academically reliable. The links to the articles work and the content is not biased and shows a clear explanation of the topic.
The sections and subsections are helpful to make the whole article flow well. I did not see any topics that were redundant and overall it was a great draft! I think the main thing to be improved is images that can help people understand exactly what you are talking about and help them visualize.