User talk:SSneurobiology
| This user is a student editor in Marquette_University/Neurobiology_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, SSneurobiology, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
D-amino acids Oxidase (secondary review)[edit]
I think you guys did really well in organizing the article in a way that makes it easy follow along. You guys have a good summary section that highlights what your article is going to cover. I like that you clarify the differences between D-amino acids oxidase and diamine oxidase since people get confused between them.
However, I think you guys should briefly mention that DAAO may have an impact on schizophrenia since you guys have a section on schizophrenia. In addition to that, you guys mentioned "h-DAAO" several times on the page but never really said what it stands for. I'm going to assume you guys meant human-DAAO since you guys use "h-DAAO and human DAAO" interchangeably. If this was the case, then still go back and incorporate it in the summary section that "human DAAO or h-DAAO is ...." Furthermore, I think you guys should summarize in like 1-2 sentences on how DAAO is used in biotechnology or medicine in the summary section. This will tie the whole article together and doesn't make the sections seem off topic since you guy have the huge section at the end.
I like the organization of your page, but I would recommend moving the "regulation" section right after the "structure and property" section. Since you guys mention activities of G72 gene in the "regulation section," I don't think it makes sense to talk about G72 in schizophrenia before giving readers the background/function of it. Overall, I think you guys did really well. Great job! SSneurobiology (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Posterior cord Syndrom (Primary review)[edit]
Overall, I think you guys need to re-read the article to make sure that each section of the article flows better. The usage of the language throughout the entire page is not understandable to those without prior knowledge. The page is supposed to be easily understood for those without any science background but when I have my non-science friends read it, they still didn't understand posterior cord syndrome. In addition to that, the summary section doesn't really summarize central points of the entire article. Lastly, the picture could use a description of the image so the readers know what they are looking at.
For the "etiology and symptoms" section, I think "etiology" should be replaced by "causes" so it's understandable for all readers. Furthermore, there are a lot of grammatical errors in this section. Please make sure that the tenses used are consistent throughout the section so it is easy to follow along. There are several run-on sentences which can make this section hard to unpack. In addition to that, there can be more transition statements so the content does not seem cluttered and confusing. Lastly, there needs to be a transition sentence for the part about cobalamin. If you guys don't want to add a transition sentence, then just start a new paragraph.
It is explained in the "treatment section" that an injection of dopamine is part of the treatment; however, the article never really mentioned dopamine. So, maybe do more research on the impact and the role of dopamine on PCS patients. If there isn't much research done on it, then explain it in the section.
The research section of the page is disorganized. The content doesn't flow well. The first sentence of the section can be simplified. For example, it could say something along the line of "While it can be difficult to do research on PCS due to variations of conditions, research has helped differentiate PCS from brain injuries." This section needs to be re-read to make sure it flows.
Lastly, none of your sources have any review articles. Case reviews can be part of the sources, but there should also be secondary reviews. In addition to that, Prezi is not a reliable source to cite. Unless the sources are from the Prezi slides, which in that case, those sources need to be cited, not Prezi. There is more content that could have been extracted from the case reviews. Please look at them again to ensure that any information was not left out. In addition to that, there is a primary source cited and I don't think it is allowed. SSneurobiology (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)