User talk:Fabreezy1/sandbox

I would like to review your work here, but I am unsure what your additions have been. I compared your sandbox with other members of your group and it seems everyone copied the whole thing over to the sandbox and I can't tell what the contributions are. Can you mark your additions or make a separate sandbox with these additions so I can review your work? Thanks! Enderjh (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your additions are fairly easy to read, however I feel that you have chosen to focus more on making it accessible to the unfamiliar rather than the scientist. At times it seems like you deleted the information that was already there that fit this description and replaced it with less or diminished information. For example, from the "Inside out patch" you deleted perfectly good information "For example, channels that are activated by intracellular ligands can then be studied through a range of ligand concentrations." Double check the things that you took out and those that you put in and make sure that you can keep it scientific as well as easy to read, and don't delete good descriptions! Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. There is a good flow. It is good that you created divisions within each of your sections with the descriptions, advantages and disadvantages. One idea, that would likely require coordination with the other members of your group, is to make a good table that can line up some of the basic advantages and disadvantages of each technique side by side. That will unite all of the sections and get a good flow going. Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. You have gotten them to a good size, but like I said before, I think you took out some things that belong in the article. The idea of the project isn't to change what is there, but to add significant and relevant information to it. Don't just add references and change wording, add good research. 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

4. You do have a bit of an imbalance in your work. The perforated patch section is three times the size of any other and the inside out half the size of the others. Try to even things out and give them even representation. Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5. It seems like you reached your objectives here, but like I said before, to fit in even better with the objectives of the project, do some more research and add some significant new information. Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6. It seems you linked most of the relevant wiki pages in your work. Others that may or may not be linked yet from what I could tell are "cell membranes" and "cAMP" (Which is under cylcic adenosine monophosphate). Great job on this part. Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7. The images are great and have some good descriptions. See if you can make the original ones you guys made a little bigger perhaps. They are great images but it is hard to see the differences between them at normal magnification. The image cheatsheet has some hints on how to do that. Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8. References should come after the data or information and not before as you did with reference 5. I noticed that most of your references were just tacked onto information that was already there. See if you can flesh it out a bit by finding some original resources and adding that original work to the page. Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9. Overall you did very well on making the webpage clean and well-presented. You wrote very well and had no obvious writing errors or difficulties. Great work overall! Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10. You met all of the criteria set up for the project. Like I noted earlier, you could definitely go a step further and add some more original content instead of just references. Thanks! Enderjh (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]