You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Phospholipids: The unsung heroes in biomoleucles!
Content type: Long
Awarded 3 out of 6 owls:
Good job!
Explanation: The originality owl was not awarded since it is only given when the material is explained in a creative way. The sexy science owl was not awarded since the content concerns technical material. The spelling and grammar owl was not awarded since there are quite a few article mistakes. (Note that the in text citation condition for the citation and source owl was wavered since the facts in the post mainly concern standard facts in this field)
Thank you @mathowl first of all.
Do you have any suggestions more how to make this article sexy? I would like to hear from you. Other 2 points I completely agree. How can I make a technical content thing sexy? Do you mean using animations or better illustrations etc? By the way, this is not a complaint okay. I was expecting 2 owls. I am happy to get 3.
The sexy science owl is awarded if the text is interesting for readers which have absolutely no background in the topic of the post. In this post there are many technical terms and some technical pictures (the wiki figure,figure 4 etc). These technical parts only have meaning if you already have some background. I think you can reduce the information of these technical parts to a simple idea which is accessible for everybody. For example I think the only thing you need from the DMPC section is the introduction of hydrophobic and hydrophilic.
It should be noted that writing a popular scientific article is much harder if the content is very technical. So the difficulty of getting the sexy science owl is very much dependent on topic.
+1 owl as of update #4: