A client with a Biomedical paper written by the client on Wilson's Disease (copy and line edited by me, %0-100 complete around 3 hours, prior info was the client's first and final draft. below is my personalized edit list and structure ideas as the client asked for the list to help understand how/why I was changing what I was changing. Client loved it. Please excuse my informal tone, I know this client personally and am very informal with them. I've also redacted personal info to keep the client's privacy intact, including the headings of Paragraphs. Also, each corresponding note I gave had a googledoc associated for ease of use.) Hey, so how this is gonna work is I’ll highlight the grammatical and structural errors I find in your paper, save that copy for you to do whatever you’d like with it in your voice, and I’ll send another copy with my corrections to grammatical, structural, and vocabulary-wise, along with notes on this page for your convenience and reference. I will also be discussing edits title by title for quicker reference on your end, as well as highlight notes. Wasn’t sure of the integrity of a googledoc on your end so I wanted to be sure I could send something that you could tangibly see and work with. Overall, I think your flow is good, it’s intelligently written as far as, I believe you know what you’re discussing. It’s not so much Argumentative style as it is Informative and I think that’s a good thing in a research paper. Most of what I have for you is changing in grammar and structure, that would leave your exact points intact and wouldn’t require too much change on your end. The other little bit I would add are my own changing to structure in an informative piece such as this, so to be clear, nothing I change is a judgment on your voice or your unique structuring, just what the run of the mill research paper would typically call for. And again, I would check on whether a listing format is alright, because if it isn’t, I’ll write the beginning sentences of each to get rid of the bolding sub paragraph titles. Notes taken before writing the opening paragraphs above. ^^ - right out of the gate I see it’s list style or Article Format that you’ve written (with the bold breaks of sub paragraph titles relative to what the next paragraph is indicating), I’m unfamiliar with this being acceptable in a college classes and research papers but if it is how it’s done then no worries, just different for me. (redacted, Paragraph 1) -catchy title, triple play on words, bonus points with me. - capital “D” for the referenced name of disease in the case of Wilson’s ownership - the thesis list style sentence at the end is followed in order throughout the paper which is good, promoting remembered structure and format, kudos. - taking chances on listing a reference in the opening statement says two things, 1 being there’s a chance your audience will find this boring and reference laden to the point that there’s barely any writing of you in it, and 2, that you are serious about what you’re writing, with the intent to educate, but this is such the plague of educational pieces. Food for thought on adding any spicy bits of your own creation to the opener. Not boring as it is because I’ve read the whole thing, it’s just a general feeling most people get when reading a thesis style opener. (redacted, Paragraph 2) - the second sentence (highlighted first in this paragraph) is run-on, especially ending in the technical genetic nomenclature. I suggest a period to split ATP7B and “this” as well as changing the next sentence to “This process encodes for a…” - in *the* granular cytoplasmic area - “even” is technically redundant, advise change to “, more specifically, is detected in the Golgi…” - advise full name, adding “Apparatus”, saying just “Golgi” feels like slang - when typing sequences, I advise brackets rather than parentheses. Brackets make it stand out from references and auto-grading programs that your teacher might use to conveniently count the arbitrary amount of references might pick that up as an incomplete or failed reference. - second half after the sequence fragment is redundant. Advise combining the two as you’ll see in my edit. - comma - advise adding “pattern” - advise adding “is present” - brackets again - this second half of the second-to-last sentence denotes there only being 2 important sequences, however, if you combine the sentence it eliminates the duality and eliminates the redundancy. - the last sentence needs to be restructured to accommodate for the sentence before, the variable example below it and to denote authenticity. Also has a comma denoting a breath pause when it is grammatically unnecessary, given that “below” is neither an interjection or a fragment, especially when giving the example literally below it. -next paragraph needs indentation for the line break of the example -perfect example of brackets vs parentheses, reading that was a little confusing whether it was a sequence or a reference, especially with the next sentence’s formula. - “this has to do with THE when THE” easy to miss the 2 “the’s” -also is the protein supposed to be possessive here as well? Or is an “at it’s” missing? - this “finally” lends frailty to your paper/informing because it denotes you are done explaining it when there are still several point and paragraphs left. -”according to the authors of…” the publication that follows should be underlined or in italics being a published work you’re referencing in full name rather than parenthetical reference of info. - “mention” is very casual for scientific pieces, advise change to “describe”, what follows is definitely not something someone would mention casually in passing conversation (redacted, Paragraph 3) -you don’t need a comma here per-say but you have been writing in oxford annotation so far, which would mean adding one for consistency. -if you don’t add a comma to the first highlight, you definitely should to the second, it being an interjection to the counterpoint of not being an enzyme. -advise changing “part” to role. -advise change to “understanding” - advise changing “people” to those. -advise changing “did” to performed - “the” missing -if you’re short-handing Wilson’s Disease in the paper, make a point earlier in the piece to let everyone know. Some people need it spelled out to them. “Wilson’s Disease (referenced hereafter as WD) is a degenerative…” or just spell it out each time, whichever you feel better with. - needs verbal tense, advise changing “affected” to affecting because you describe them being recorded at the time they were acting differently than expected. - should this be “lacking *the* inherent…” or further down, “expression *demonstrating*…”? (redacted, Paragraph 4) - advise changing to “without an N-terminal…” (redacted, Paragraph 5) - no need for this comma as “inherited” does not inject with “treatable - advise change to structure, “this excess copper leads to cirrhosis, which scars and damages the liver” - change “it can affect other…” to “Wilson’s Disease can affect…” because you mentioned cirrhosis by name, making it technically the “it” pronoun last named and last technically being mentioned. - rule of three: if you list three things, the third should never be “etc” the first time you list them the way you did. Advise putting in kidneys or another organ or even “among others”, because “etc” makes it seem as though your readers should already know this information, which itself defeats the purpose of an informative piece. “among others” does what “etc.” does but it takes the eyes off the first part of that sentence and gets to the informative meat of the symptoms in the second half - the second “etc” after the symptoms is ok due to you listing more than enough relative information - advise adding an “*as* it is seen”, or changing completely to “the disease is not found in any one place like many other diseases are characterized by, as it is seen in men and women alike, and being found in children and young adults as well, it has not been found to have a preference in age.” - this sentence is missing what it’s describing in the therapy you mention. Read it carefully and change what the therapy is vs. What the doctors are doing to treat, if that’s what you’re describing, the structure of it is confusing. - at treatment or process after “this”, always reference in writing research papers what you’re describing in the previous sentence, that’s what they look for in “complete” sentences. - advise changing to “In severe cases of Wilson’s Disease, liver transplants are the only viable course of action.” otherwise it sounds like a throw-in to the paragraph. - advise changing to “there are also ongoing clinical trials…” because you have already referenced different trials above not relative in their treatments to this next treatment. Conclusion -Wilson’s *D*isease (capitalize d) *was* an overall -You are writing the paper, the audience knows it has opinion behind it being yours, I advise leaving off “it to me,” and saying how you would speak “It is insane how…” -”would have also would have” -gotten is technically a word that’s in the dictionary because of our verbal use of it, not a word you would want to put in a research paper being a verbal tense slang of “got” or “giving”, advise changing to “collected” -very many bonus points from me for using “than” correctly, you’ve no idea how much I see that mixed up. -after using “overall” in the first sentence, I wouldn’t use it again to close. Repetition is good in poetry, a good vocab is good in both poetry and papers. Advise dropping it and starting it with “I believe” (redacted, Closing Paragraph) -I advise adding a semicolon or also emboldening this fragment. -combine these two sentences with a comma denoting what the protein is. “…with COMMD1, a regulatory protein Involved in copper metabolism” -change “they” to either who “they are” (even though you reference at the end) or “scientists” or “Doctors”, whoever is performing the study. -if you keep it this way, add a comma, however I advise to drop the causal nature of “seems great” to “it would seem to be a great disovery leading to WD treatment…” - Tried, past tense, being that they already failED Bibliography - neatly done, don’t have much to say about it other than I probably hate bibs as much as you and every other student that writes papers out there. Overall, I genuinely was interested and informed the whole time, which is cool for me, your structure, minus some grammar parts that are exceedingly common for everyone to mes up, is really good. I enjoyed reading and I hope this helps.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ArchivesCategories
All
|