User talk:Gicoo001/sandbox

Overall, the tone of what you have written is neutral and it doesn't seem like you have added any personal opinions or favored any facts over any other. I think there is a good amount of detail to help the reader follow along, even those who may not be familiar with the topic. I also like that you linked some of the major concepts to other wiki pages, which would assist readers that wanted to know more of the specific details. I think that if there is more on the topic of how they were discovered, adding a section about that may make it more of fuller addition. I also think both of your sections could benefit from a lead sentence, especially since you go straight into the details and facts. It may be beneficial to hook the reader or at least an over view of what they would be reading in the sections. All in all, I think it was a great draft and that there really isn't much more you could do to what you have. Kdgaffney (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I like how neutral the artical is. however, I think the descriptive features heading could be reworded as it seems to focus more on the pathology or dissfunction? I think you could focus some also on the general features of the function of the cell and that would be more appropriate under the discriptive features heading. in general, i think a more complete outline briefly bullet pointing what you plan on covering would be useful.AInWonderland (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! I will change the headings to reflect the overall content of the sections, and will add lead in sentences. -Gicoo001 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Great ideas and article. I like your ideas you have at the bottom too. You could add a Contents box at the top when you migrate your writing over to the mainspace! ProfJRL (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)