User talk:Taraaaala/sandbox
Review 1
[edit]Hi Tara,
This is a great draft. I loved all of the links that are included to other pages. I thought your descriptions were very clear. Don't forget to cite the review article. I think that a few more details about what was known when the article was written will help when you talk about progress since the article later. Besides that, I just noticed a few grammar issues. Make sure you put quotes around the title of the article because it is a title. Add commas around "in general" so that it reads, "DNA, in general, is considered..." Finally, change "this" to "these" in the sentence "Despite all these protective mechanisms..." Overall, great work. Your language is clear and it sounds like it could go in an encyclopedia.
Sthra001 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Tara! Your summary draft is very clear and concise and I also appreciate all the links to other pages to help readers understand what you are talking about. I noted some of the same minor changes that Stephanie did, but in addition, the sentence beginning "It is to be noted..." does not flow and I think it may be due to an extra verb. Also, the last sentence seems to be a bit contradictory to me, when you say there is debate about mtDNA being involved in aging but then immediately say it is definitely involved in aging. But overall, the pertinent information from the review article is present and presented clearly. Good job! Brihite (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tara,
Again, you have produced a great draft. Your description of the work since the review is very well written, clear, and detailed. I loved all of the citations you included in this section. It adds breadth and depth to your review. Don't forget to italicize "Drosophila melanogaster." Also, I would change "Researches were done" to "Research was done." Besides that, I just noticed some minor grammar mistakes, so I would just read over it again, paying attention to grammar. Great job!
Sthra001 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Tara, You have a great draft here! I would recommend going through it with an eye out for subject/verb agreement and general minor grammar effors. I do have a couple of notes for you though. I would italicize Drosophila melanogaster if you can and explain what an RC is. I came across that term and did not recognize it. I also did not recognize A-beta metabolism; could you just briefly define what this does? One other thing that I noticed was that you remark "it is definitely interesting" on the results of one the papers you include, however, I think it would be best to omit opinions of this kind. The organization of your summary is great, very easy to follow. My only recommendation on this subject is that you revise the first sentence of your last paragraph for clarity, and maybe try to include some kind of closing remark that generally summarizes what you discussed. Keep up the good work! Brianna Brihite (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)