User talk:Redheadweek13/sandbox
As is, your contribution is a good expansion of the Regulatory Validation section on the original Biomarker Wiki Page. The addition of an example for the Chemistry, Geology, and Astrobiology section is also a much-needed expansion which gives the reader a good understanding of potential biomarker uses outside of clinical medicine. The first sentence of the second paragraph in your Ethical Debate and Issues header is a bit of a run-on, and I would consider splitting it up into 2 sentences or re-wording it to be concise. I also don't know if "Ethical Debate and Issues" is a good header for that section, since it mostly seems to cover ethical issues and doesn't present opposing viewpoints that are characteristic of a 'debate'. I would recommend adding particular examples of institutions or parties against clinical biomarkers if you are going to keep 'debate' in the header. Otherwise the rest of the article reads well and is well-cited. Jmalysa (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a great addition to the Biomarker Wiki page. I would suggest renaming the Chemistry, Geology, and Astrobiology section as "Applications in Chemistry, Geology, and Astrobiology" section, or something similar, as I was a bit confused about what the subject of it was. Additionally, for the list of Analytical performance validators, I would link some of those terms to the wiki pages about them, as unfamiliar individuals may want the clarification. Other than those two suggestions, I think this is written in a very unbiased manner, and a logical addition to the page.Ellamarrero (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a decent addition to the Biomarker page. The expansion on Regulatory Validation consolidates the original one and definitely makes it clearer. One problem that I have reading the page is its structure. Is the "Regulatory Validation" section supposed to be within the Medicine section? I think a little work in restructuring the page would result in a much cleaner and approachable page. I've also noticed that you only used 3 sources, which was probably enough for the expansions you wrote. However, maybe a couple more secondary sources might help you to strengthen your additions and make it more convincing, at least for me. Fakeroute (talk) 5:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Overall, this is a quality article and I have very little to add with concerns about quality of research and presentation. It might be useful to add a piece on who the ethical consideration topics have come from. Small grammatical changes: "400,000 gallons of crude oil were accidentally spilled" rather than "was accidentally spilled". Also, keep colon use or non-use consistent in the headings. (talk) 00:30, 17 Feb 2020 (UTC)
Overall the additional information is clearly valid contribution to the page. I particularly like the section on the timeline, where the structure of starting each paragraph with a specific time makes the information presented easy to access. The history section is a little dense for me as someone that knows nothing about anything related the bio-markers. I wonder if you could maybe make it a little simpler. In particular, I don't really see how the last sentence relates to the second last one. I think if would help to present the connection of the last sentence to the previous ones in a clearer way. Other than this, I like the page! Stay safe and find something to do at home! Fakeroute (talk) 2:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a great addition to the biomarker page. I also really like the timeline section, I would suggest structurally to put it as bullet points so it differs visually (just an aesthetic choice really). In the timeline you say "Shugart defined biomarkers as, “biological markers are..." You should cut the "biological markers are", for redundancy's sake. In the introduction of the 'history' section you say "although these methods were...the tests did not provide data.." This isn't super clear grammatically and could be reworded. Other than those small edits, I think this is an excellent addition. Good job! Ellamarrero (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Great job on your additions in general. A couple thoughts - if exotoxicology studies could be considered the precursors to biomarker studies, perhaps the category belongs further up the page in terms of the page’s logical organization. Additionally, define exactly what exotoxicology is in that section, and explain more clearly how it led to biomarker studies.
As it stands, your active biomonitoring section is too short to be a full section. Perhaps incorporate it as a subsection into History. Again, overall, great job.
22:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Nick Ornstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasOrnstein (talk • contribs)