User talk:Ironphd10/Skeletal muscle

Article Review Comments

Article Review Huginnscientia (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, great job on such comprehensive article draft. It has really great and interesting content. I would suggest removing the hyperlink citation in entire sentences, and adding it only to the citation number at the end of a sentence. Small grammar details I noticed: "The goal of this paper (CHANGE or REMOVE goal of this paper) is to attempt to explain the potential evolutionary mechanisms behind the emergence...", "Homarus americanus, the 3 main fibers (TYPES OF THE SKELETAL MUSCLE WERE ANALYZED) type were analyzed of the skeletal muscle. The 3 distinct fiber types included fast...", "In turtles, Psuedemys (Trachemys) scripta elegans (REMOVE Pseudemys, the most current species name is Trachemys scripta elegans)" Have you defined the abbreviations FDL and EG (on the turtle paragraph) somewhere else, before they appear for the first time? Also, I recommend using the hyperlink function to link technical terms and animals groups to other Wiki pages. Adding pictures of the different muscle fibers, if available, would be really interesting since the original wiki page is heavily focused on humans. Maybe move the section "Genetic Conservation versus Functional Conservation" bellow the "Mammals" section. The last suggestion I have is adapting the language from a paper style (e.g. "This paper begins to address..."), to article format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huginnscientia (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This really helped. Dr. Fowler-Finn, I made these adjustments to my article. Ironphd10 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Deva's review

Firstly, I like the article topic and overall structure and individual sections which makes very efficient to read. This might be helpful for non-science readers too. Some minor grammatical/words/sentence comments are (AMongst - Among; 4th line under Mammal section, african - African; 7th line under Mammal section, high - a high; 3rd line under Plasticity section). I would also think adding some images or diagram would make more promising. As the section and headings are very clear, I think numbering or highlighting those might make more systematic. Overall, the article seems really interesting. Great Job!

Biva peer review I found the article is very interesting and well structured. The sentences and contents are relatable and connected to the flow. Understanding the evolutionary mechanism in this study might be helpful for different organisms. I would think adding some images and reducing words may make the article more linkable. Also, some typo or word corrections (such as African, ",") and adding table of contents might be helpful for readers. In conclusion, the article is really interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctngirl (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Deva and Biva, these helped as well! Ironphd10 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)