User talk:KwahawkYoang/sandbox

Hey Kimberly, thanks for all the good ideas! I appreciate the time you put into reviewing this, and I'm really glad you caught the broken link at the bottom. I actually typed https twice. Go figure. Anyway, thanks again and good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KwahawkYoang (talk • contribs) 04:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patch Clamp Techniques Outside-Out and Loose

1. Is the web page suitable for first-time/general users as well as for those looking to understand the topic in more detail? Yes, although I would make sure to add the links I mention in question 6 for the first-timers. The figures really help make the page more accessible to first-time users, so good job on those. Also, on the second paragraph it might be useful to make some kind of reference to the section on your page about whole-cell seeing as some of your users may be looking only at this section and could become confused if they are not familiar with whole cell techniques. I would also suggest changing the second or third paragraph in outside-out patch to include a more obvious reference to what they technique can be used to measure.

2. Is there a logical flow to the page? As far as subject matter goes, yes. But I would consider adding transitional sentences between the first and second and second and third paragraphs, the change in topic is rather abrupt as is. Also, the first sentence is fairly involved, especially for a first time user. It seems to have two different subjects so I would suggest breaking it up into at least two separate sentences, if not three since it is its own paragraph.

3. Do the contents of each section justify its length? Absolutely. You discussed the history, technique, advantages and disadvantages for each and I think that coverage is great. The figures are very helpful as well. I do suggest you add a little more to the technique section of the loose patch. For more information see the next question.

4. Has a particular section been over-emphasized or under-emphasized compared to others? It would be nice to see a little bit more about the actual procedure for loose patch. I think the outside out procedure was outlined very well but the loose patch was lacking a little bit. For example, the sentence “The pipette should not pierce the cell, nor should it push hard against the membrane to form a gigaseal or permanent connection,” is really good but it leaves the reader with the question what does it do? Explain not only what doesn’t happen, but what does. Does it hover above the surface?

5. Are all the important terms linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference? You have linked most of the difficult technical words. There are a few I would like to add if they haven’t already been linked somewhere else in the page, or maybe even if they have, I would link: Electrode, ion channel, electrical resistance, impedance, electrophysiology, muscle fibers. My guess is most of your readers won’t need these defined, but it never hurts to have more links for the ones who don’t have any idea. (Plus they’re really easy to add anyways.)

6. Do the images add to the educational value of the article? Definitely. Good job with them, they are very descriptive and help explain the techniques very well. It might be worth it to try smoothing out the edges on the figures a little bit though, and clean up the text. If the figures are brought up in another page they start to look grainy, even the words on the images. Also, I was noticing that the arrows aren’t easily noticeable. A first time user may just see the four figures and think that they demonstrate four different techniques, with yours among them. You might consider putting numbers on each of the steps to make it clear that it is a sequential process, and then just make the arrows smaller.

7. Are the references relevant and integrated well into the article? Yes. The first reference was particularly informative, as well as the fourth. There is a problem with the link to the fifth reference however. When I tried to go to the article the webpage was unavailable, so you will definitely need to fix that link before you publish the article. I was also noticing that three of the references were more of applications of the techniques you discuss. It’s great to have some application, but if at all possible you might want to find one more article that discusses the actual techniques themselves, or maybe a textbook.

8. Rate the overall presentation of the webpage. Check for typos, hard-to-read images and equations or syntax errors. The presentation of the page is helpful and informative. Some of the sentence structure could be revised to be clearer. For example, “…if the bleb of membrane is small enough.” Small enough is quite vague. Give a range or say that you are trying to isolate a single channel. You could also set up your next section which mentions “an ion channel when it is isolated from the cell” by mentioning that the goal is often to get only a single channel in the membrane and how difficult that can be. Also, my personal preference is that “the experimenter” makes your paragraphs sound forced, so you may want to review its use, but that is just my opinion. In the sentence “this is the distinct advantage of the outside-out patch relative to the cell-attached method,” it is unclear what the distinct advantage is. You listed a bunch of things in the last sentence. Tell the reader explicitly how what you are doing in outside-out is advantageous. i.e. “Because the response of the channel can be observed based on different solutions so quickly, outside-out patch has a distinct advantage relative to the cell-attached method.” This isn’t the perfect sentence but it clarifies what advantage you are talking about. (If that was the advantage you were meaning.) The syntax on the sentence “However, it is more difficult to accomplish, as more steps are involved in the patching process,” seems a little disjointed from the other sentences. You might consider separating it completely by saying, “However, the technical difficulty that comes as more steps are involved in the patching process makes outside out patch more difficult to accomplish.” “Such a technique” is rather ambiguous. Also, maybe switch “is described” to “was used”. Or something. I’m not exactly sure how you want to change that sentence, but something in it seems awkward.

9. Does the website satisfy all the assigned criteria (a minimum of one section, one figure, and three references per team member)? Yes. Way to go!!!

Hope this helps KwahawkYoang! -Kimberly Jackson 128.187.191.251 (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KwahawkYoang, I'm your reviewer. Are there any other changes you need to make, or are you ready to be reviewed? Kajax3 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]