Wikipedia:Peer review/Radial glial cell/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completely redone the article. Minor fixes that may need improvement are fomating (commas, sentence structure) as well as wikilinks and flow. Please also comment on any content that you think should be added/changes.
Please also note that this is the first wiki page I have worked on, so any advice is appreciated!
Thanks, Anjely9 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Anjely9
Comments from EricEnfermero I notice that this request has been here for a while with no comments. I'm a nurse, and certainly no subject matter expert, but I'm happy to leave some comments. Mostly, I think that there are some opportunities to make the language a little bit more accessible to the non-scientist reader.
- Words like progenitor come up several times. I know you link to that term, but you might also explain in a few words, especially in the lead, where you're introducing the reader to the topic.
- Same thing for the use of unipotent and multipotent - may be better as "can divide into (one/multiple) cell types"
- "various varicosities or swellings" - is this a direct quote from Magini? Best to include an inline citation directly after a quote.
- "Additional early works that were..." - passive voice makes this a little confusing
- Functions section: I'm confused about whether Notch should be capitalized in this context.
- "first widely-accepted" - usually no hyphen after an -ly adverb.
- lowercase for glia in the Bergmann glia image
- lowercase for lissencephaly x 2
- See also: In most cases, we don't include wikilinks here if they've already been linked and discussed in the body.
- References: Some caps issues in the references. For journal names, each major word is usually capitalized.
These are some initial comments for at least a starting place. Strong work so far! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)