User talk:Jbdbaseball/sandbox

Any feedback would be appreciatedJbdbaseball (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

First off, I believe you're article is meant to replace the "Biochemistry and mechanism of toxicity" heading in the existing Botulinum Toxin page, and I am assuming you haven't uploaded any of your revisions to the actual page yet, so all of these comments are me trying to compare what is there to what you have added.

1. Is the web page suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail?
   1. Your opening sentence gives a good introduction, but then you start into using quite a bit of technical jargon: "proteolytic", "Heavy Chain", "Light Chain", etc. You could try to either link off to definitions for some of these terms or just replace them with more generally understood synonyms.
2. Is there a logical flow to the page?
   1. You say that it is a 4-step mechanism, but I don't see you number or label the four steps anywhere in paragraph 2. Maybe you could do something like, "The first step is..."
3. Do the contents of each section justify its length?
   1. Since the section is devoted to the mechanism, it would make sense for that to be more than just one short paragraph.
4. Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others?
   1. The mechanism was a little underemphasized I think.
5. Does the sandbox satisfy the aims/objectives listed in their outline?
   1. Again, I'm assuming this section is meant to replace the "Biochemistry and mechanism of toxicity" portion of the existing page. I think the content addresses this topic well.
6. Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?
   1. Yes, great work here. Lot's of links.
7. Do the images add to the educational value of the article?
   1. Yes. But I'm not sure you met the requirement for images because this isn't an image you uploaded, it is already on the existing wikipedia page.
8. Are the references relevant and integrated well into the article?
   1. Yes. Lot's of new and relevant references compared to the original article. Good job.
9. Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors.
   1. Overall, presentation is good. The first sentence sounds awkward to me the way that it ends with "that we know of". Maybe you could change it to "Botulinum Toxin is one of the most potent toxins to have ever been discovered."
10. Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of one section, one figure, and three references per team member)?
    1. I don't think you satisfied this criteria: "A minimum of 1 figure or scheme must be added to the site per group member. "

Overall, well done! Biophys99 (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)