Talk:BC200 lncRNA

BC200 lncRNA Peer Review 1
I would recommend more external links in order to allow for tying ideas and basic understanding of BC200 lncRNA together- i.e. "long non-coding RNA", "neuropil" (even though a brief description is given), "pseudogenes", etc. Even linking to more basic pages like "chromosomes", "promoters", "somatic cells", etc. may be beneficial. Next, although I'm sure you are considering it or have/will have comments about it, but a figure of the structure and possibly gene map would be helpful for the page. The text under "Structure" and "Location" indicate that both are known fairly well, so a figure would exemplify this (though I know it is hard to make figures sometimes as the literature figures are off-limits).

In terms of writing, I would shy away from the types of introductions likes "this meant" and "indeed" in sentences (within "Biosynthesis" section) as this begins to lean away from a neutral viewpoint into a more affirmative one. Truthfully, unless the multiple steps of discussion are necessary, the fact of how the experimentation was carried out (basic method-may need to be expanded on if particular method is not well understood already), and what the results indicated from that experiment should be enough to discuss how transcription was blocked. The other sentences just add extra repetition or unneeded information in this context. Furthermore, the rest of the page is written in present tense while this one is written in predominantly past tense. I would recommend uniform present tense throughout the page.

The sections lead well with information that has pertinence or relevance to frame the following content.

While this may be difficult due to the niche nature of lncRNA, I would recommend trying to find further resources for citation that were not primary literature. Books, reviews, articles, etc. may allow for references that allow for more "toned-down" explanations over certain content and points. Granted, I know in some cases this is near impossible. While I understand that the statement near the end of the page under "Potential Target" emphasizes future direction of understanding BC200 lncRNA's impact, using the term "hope" seems out of place. The page should be reserved for facts and basic statements while the sentences there seem more appropriate for a conclusion section of a journal or article.

Overall, the content supplied and the way it is presented and covered is well done. It is apparent that certain sections had inspiration from different group members, so I would simply just go through the page together and iron it out to have a more uniform style of writing throughout the page. Also, as you approach finishing the page, I would add to the beginning summary of the page to add more of why it is important and its effect. You mention that it regulates translation by inhibiting translation, but why is that novel or important? How can you take information that is in the rest of the article to make a simplified "hook" for the content to follow. For instance, adding something along the lines of "BC200 lncRNA has been found to be associated with multiple cancers and Alzheimer's disease" or possibly something else makes the article worth reading to find out more. Smithtyl (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

BC200 lncRNA Peer Review 2

 * The introductory section is a good start but could use a little more content to familiarize the reader with the topic matter. I like how the intro sentence is not too detailed to the point where it confuses the reader but it could have more important information about the article's subject and give a better overview of the rest of the article.
 * In general, more important terms should be hyperlinked so users can access more information relevant to the subject.
 * In the third sentence of the second paragraph of the "structure" section, I was confused what "c-rich" means. I think it would be a good idea to define that there.
 * Unless the "location" section is going to be elaborated more, it probably should not be its own section and should be a part/combined with another section.
 * I felt that in the "biosynthesis" section, not all the synthesis' components' exact role (listed in the frist paragraph of the section) were discussed so that should be elaborated more.

In terms of grammatical suggestions:
 * In the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section, it should be "...which IS more prevalent than protein-coding genes". That portion is describing the group BC RNA is a part of, which is singular (group, not groups). There should be a dash between protein and coding since the gene is not a protein gene and it is not a coding gene; it is a protein-coding gene.
 * The third sentence of the same paragraph should be rephrased (the "though" placement is awkward).
 * In the last sentence of that paragraph, a "," should be placed before the "which" (... neurophil areas, which are composed of...)
 * In the third sentence of the second paragraph of the "structure" section, alanine needs to be hyphenated with the word rich (alanine-rich) as seen when it says c-rich.
 * The second sentence of the "location" section does not need a comma since the second part is dependent.
 * In the first sentence of the "biosynthesis" section, "TATA" is not capitalized the second time it is used.
 * In the "biosynthesis" section, try to avoid using phrases like "this meant", "indeed", or "strangely enough". The article needs to be conveyed in an neutral manner without adding personal opinions.
 * "Additionally" is spelled incorrectly in the second paragraph of "biosynthesis" and "TATA" is not capatilized again (and in the third paragraph).
 * In the second paragraph of the "function" section, the word "is" needs to be omitted
 * In the third paragraph of the "function" section, it should be "gene-encoding protein" with the hyphen. In The following setence, "indicate" should be plural since it is referring to "conservation"
 * In the "potential target" section, "it's" should not have an "'" because it is not a contraction. Richardwan27 (talk)

BC200 lncRNA Peer Review 3
First, I’ll go through by section and give my feedback on each. I mainly agree with the points of the other reviewers, so I’ll try not to double down on grammatical or typographical errors.

The intro is succinct and accurate, although it feels bare. One or two more sentences highlighting the significance of BC200 lncRNA and why we study it might entice a passing reader to keep scrolling (think disease and treatment).

Characteristics

I found myself wondering what exactly an Alu domain was, so try either rewording the sentence below or linking to the “Alu Element” Wikipedia page somewhere.

“Having monomeric Alu short interspersed repetitive elements (SINEs) in its 5’ region has traced BC200’s origin to primates.”

Structure

My suggestion here is to continue adding structural information as you find it.

Location

This information is definitely useful, but I don’t know if these two sentences warrant an entire section. Biosynthesis

I think any mention of “experimentation” in this section can and should be phased out. Results in this field are always obtained using experimentation, so it seems a bit odd to keep mentioning that all of this was found through experimentation. Making this modification will also make it easier to use uniform tense throughout this section, as there is a mixture of present tense and past tense since experiments are being discussed. If you were to include a figure or graphic on this page, this section would be a great spot for it. Each sequence region being discussed could be displayed on a simple linear cartoon of the transcript. Color coding and patterns could help visually identify sequences necessary for proper function.

Regarding the last paragraph, I wouldn’t worry about leading the reader to the next section. The first sentence, “All of these players…” is awkward for this encyclopedic article, so I think that should be taken out. This sort of voids the second sentence as well, but I think the fact that ‘BC200 RNA is transferred to the dendrites after synthesis’ can be slipped in somewhere else or assumed by the reader.

Function

The first paragraph is in need of some citation(s).

In the fourth sentence of this section, the word “Eukaryotic” should not be capitalized.

The scientific prose in this section is excellent.

Applications and Role in Disease

This section is very informative and succinct. It’s good to see use of current literature and avoidance of inadequately supported assertions in the Potential Target section; this makes it easier to edit in the future.

Overall, this is an excellent draft for your article. My main suggestion is that you work to unify the writing style throughout the page as it is clear where different group members are writing. This should be done carefully to avoid inaccurately conveying the information.

Tlefevre (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nils' Comments
Please go through the text carefully to avoid statements such as that A-rich means "Alanine-rich" (which does not make sense if the RNA is not translated). Also, BC200 is just one of perhaps 80,000 different lncRNAs, so make sure to more broadly lay out the concept of lncRNAs (with appropriate links) and how this one fits in with the 79,999 other ones - how it is similar and how it is different. A couple of figures of BC200's three-domain structure and perhaps functional model would also help.

MLibrarian's Topic Review
Congratulations on finding a new topic and writing an extensive piece about it! I would suggest revising the text and bring more flow to it and also try explaining things in more general way - it is a Wiki page and shall be clear to a non-science audience. In addition,
 * 1) you shall hyperlink to other wiki pages as many concepts as possible. E.g. human genome, non-coding transcripts (there are non-coding RNA on wiki), non-coding RNAs, synapse, cancer
 * 2) "the human genome, which is more prevalent" - when you use "which", the reader automatically looks at the last concept. It would be better if you start a new sentence instead and repeat what you are talking about
 * 3) "tumours" --> tumors MLibrarian (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Gillian's Comments
Good job! I would add figures to the structure and the location sections if you can. Also, be sure to include more of a introduction in the first part, remember you are introducing your topic to a general audience.