User talk:Remember glia/sandbox

Peer Review

In review your citations all check out, and good use of Lit reviews. Much of the paper could still be updated with citations, especially that "citation needed" tag, but that's not really your job. Good catch on the lack of Monoclonal antibody synthesis procedure, and the insert reads neutrally. The BrdU addition works, and I'd say it's notable if it has a whole review about its use and significance. Overall good job, it looks like it was a highly technical article to approach. One thing is I wonder if your sources apply to other lines in the paper.GreenMacaw (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article on IHC was very informative and thorough. I would just like to offer a couple comments to hopefully improve/help finalize the article.

In the second paragraph/first sentence I think it could be reworded to ..."widely used in the identification of abnormal cells". Similarly I would flip the 3rd and 4th sentence for the first and second. It seems more chronologically relevant to have the basic information first before mentioning the usage for cancer diagnosis. The 'preparing tissue slices' section could use another reference or two along with 'reducing non-specific immuno-staining'. The first sentence of the 'Diagnostic IHC markers' demonstrates some subjectivity and I am not entirely sure if that is appropriate for Wikipedia.

The figures added to the article are well-placed and add to the overall reader-friendly nature of the article. Other than the minor edits above, the article has a great structure and will prove useful for those looking for information on IHC.

-Jcolls4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)