User talk:Nathanneuro/sandbox

Feedback

@Nathanneuro, Mknut3, BioEd53, and Neurosynn: Really nice work on your draft.

• References go after punctuation, not before, and there shouldn’t be spaces before refs. Section headers should use sentence case; only proper nouns and the first word of each section header should be capitalized.
• Only proper nouns should be capitalized in the text.
• You need to copy-edit your work - I found missing periods, missing spaces, typos.
• There are a lot of missing references. References should appear immediately after the statements they support. There should be a minimum of one reference per paragraph, and there shouldn’t be any text after the last reference in a paragraph. The entire physiology section, for example, has no references.
• Your first two references are to MedicineNet and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. You should be working from the highest-quality references available. While these meet the bare minimum requirement of being a reliable source, they aren't especially good ones. Remember that any biomedical statements need to be consistent with WP:MEDRS; whenever possible, that should be review articles published within the last 5 years.
• You need to make sure that the references you cite actually support the statements you make. For example, you say "Researchers have taken a new direction investigating the effects of an open channel block, memantine, with much faster blocking and unblocking rates. the faster kinetics of memantine is though to be the underlying reason for the clinical tolerance" with a reference from 1992. For starters, this is a report on research, not a review article, so that's not the best source. It's a 25-year-old article; since then, these "new directions" have either been pursued (in which case they aren't new and should be covered by more recent sources) or they have not been pursued. The following part is even more problematic

Ultimately, research suggests this open channel block could be used to prevent increasing glutamate levels associated with neurotoxicity with little to no side effects compared to other treatment options.

This is speculation on the part of the researchers, and was this not a biomedical topic, it would have to be reported as speculation. In a biomedical topic, 25-year-old speculation about a therapeutic path really can't be included.

• Your article is incomplete. The "Biomarkers" section is nothing but a couple notes. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)