Talk:Siglec

message: Hi,
I'm a third year biochemist and am planning to edit this page. I studied Glycobiology this year and have quite a good knowledge of these proteins. 
I aim to discuss the primary structure of siglecs and some common functions between them, discussing some examples for the major, well-known functions. I will then probably discuss their discovery and developmental functions via knock-out studies. 
I will hopefully produce a full and knowledgeable resource regarding siglecs. 
Minimuns (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I will be working on this article in the upcoming month as part of a project for my college course. I plan to draw information from the following sources: 
1> Siglecs and Immune Regulation (Annual Review of Immunology Book 30)
2> Nature Review Immunology or Nature Reviews articles 
3> Reviews article published on NCBI 
4> Reviews article on Public Library of Science (PLoS) 
I wonder if these sources are credible enough for this type of article. Let me know what you think :) Thank you in advance for your comments!!!! --Immcarle80 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First time editing Wikipedia articles 

message: Hello,
I have recently reviewed your article as part of the peer review component of this project. Here are my comments:
1) Your article makes a sufficient use of references, all of which are up to date, well-cited and mainly come from secondary sources. I am not sure about one statement if it's coming from primary source (I have highlighted it in the copy I sent to your email). You have made a good job incorporating them into your text, as well as citing them as part of the references page. Some of your statements are not cited and I was wondering if they just group together with other statements or you just forgot to cite them; in the latter case, please make sure you cite them for your last draft.
2) Your format and general tone are quite on spot: the article is neutral; the text is a summary of other sources and synthetic analysis or personal commentary are absent; the article follows proper formality. Good job!
3) Even though you make a great attempt incorporating immunology terminology in a simple, yet informative way, I feel that in some cases the article is too scientific and formal - it targets only a highly sophisticated scientific audience. You could make an attempt to simplify some sentences and make it more understandable for readers who might not have a deeper background.
4) There's not a clear, distinct lead section, as I understand it, but I am assuming your first paragraph is your lead section. In such a case, your lead section is very good and informative as an introduction for the rest of the section, but make sure it's clearly separated from the rest.
5) Grammar and spelling all look fine!
6) Overall, it is a very interesting new section to the original article. I am not sure how you would want to name it or under which category it would fall, but it's to the point and informative! Make sure you add a headline to the section and subsection so that all parts are clear and distinct. 
Kallinikos (Immcarle67)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immcarle67 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kallinikos' peer review