User talk:RNAsilencing/sandbox
Peer Review Feedback
editHi Reina!
It looks like your draft is going to be focused on fish anatomy. Your draft is well organized, I like how you made a little figure legend, so that I know the edits you want to make and remove (super smart idea!). It seems that the sources you listed are all reliable, and there is a clear structure with how you’re editing each portion of the article.
Copy Edit- ideas: - Reproductive: I think the portion you added here, flows/meshes well with what was already written on the Wikipedia page. Sex determination in fish, which is dependent on intrinsic genetic factors, is followed by sex differentiation through gene expression of feedback mechanisms that ensure the stability of the levels of particular hormones and cellular profile. However, the hermaphroditic species are an exception in which they are able to alter the course of sex differentiation in order to maximize their fitness. There are various determination mechanisms for gonadal sex in fish and processes that aid development of the gonadal function. Gonadal sex is influenced by a number of factors, including cell-autonomous genetic mechanisms, endocrine, paracrine, or behavioral, or environmental signals. This results in the primordial germ cells (PGCs) to be able to interpret internal or external stimuli to develop into spermatogonia or oogonia.[1]
- I bolded a few words that I think could have an embedded link to other Wikipedia articles, so that if readers haven’t heard of the terms, they could click on them.
Also, I looked over the article your editing, “Fish Reproduction,” and it seems that the section Ovuliparity and Ovoviviparity could be added on to, and also parts of Oviparity seem to be plagiarized. So, just another idea if you wanted more to edit. Overall, I think you have great ideas for editing, and I like the approach your taking to do it.
Peer Review
editHi Reina,
The key that you provided with explanations of what you're changing and what you're planning on removing helped out a lot when reviewing your draft. I think that the structure flows very well, I like that you kept the original layout of the article, especially with the opening paragraph. I think that adding your contributions to the end of the paragraph helped bulk it up a lot, and it provided a god set-up for your additions to both the testes and ovaries portions respectively. I can see that you'll be focusing most of your attention on the fish reproductive anatomy page.
Your sources look reliable and I think you did a good job of integrating the information in a way that flows well with the rest of the article.
The only copyedit ideas I had in mind were already noted by another per, most of it was mainly just hyperlinking words/phrases but it seems that my other peer has covered most of it. Other than that I think that your proposed revisions are really well done and will contribute greatly to the article.--Bokhan (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review on Draft Edits
editHi there Reina! I really like your draft so far, I think you have some great contributions to make and your draft is very well organized. Here are the notes that I made: All information appears to be neutral. All sources appear to be reliable and peer reviewed. The draft is well organized and easy to follow. I don’t believe that edits of other group members are present in this draft. This makes it so contribution of other team members is unable to be determined. I don’t currently see any proposals for images to be added to the page in this draft. The organization and placements of edits are very clear, and it is easy to see what is being added and to where. Other relevant pages are included and linked in this draft. I didn't have any copyedit ideas that weren't already noted. Great work! Elephantidae123 (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)