Talk:Glycerol kinase deficiency

Summary

This article studies the main causes of glycerol kinase deficiency and explores its harmful effect on glycolysis. It covers the various aspects of the disease, including symptoms and suggested course of treatment. Ominsnievi92 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall

Overall, the article is well-written and provides a great overview of the GKD for an uninformed and curious reader.

Major

1. Your article is missing an introduction. I think it would be helpful to have one to explain the purpose of your article or at least an overview of the deficiency before jumping in to its causes. 2. Adding a picture of "glycerol kinase gene present on the locus Xp21 of the X chromosome is either deleted or mutated" would be useful. 3. Under Treatment: Mentioned that there are varying degrees, which should be mentioned earlier because it is quite an important point. Perhaps include the different medications for the different severity of the disease. Ominsnievi92 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 4. Figures, pictures, and bullets would be beneficial to the reader's understanding. Ex: a diagram showing the method of glycolysis, and specifically where GKD interferes; pictures of some of the visible symptoms; and bulleted lists of the symptoms and treatments. You should definitely still keep your explanations, but adding bulleted lists might make it clearer. 5. A key fact that you're missing is the prevalence. Approximately what percent, or 1 in how many people have it? 6. I agree about the introduction, and make sure you clearly state in one sentence what GKD in fact is classified as: a medical condition, disorder, or disease?. 7. Please specify just how debilitating it is. You mention that there is no sure treatment, but don't clearly specify whether the person's condition continues to debilitate over time or if treatments can be effective enough to eliminate the symptoms and allow the person to live a normal life. Also, do people die from it? Mnatoli29 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor

1. For Causes, I suggest you split the three causes in two different paragraphs for convenience of readers. 2. Under "Treatment," "Treatments for Glycerol Kinase Deficiency are targeted to treat the symptoms," does not make grammatical sense. Ominsnievi92 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC) 3. Causes: I agree with Olivia about separating into two paragraphs. Also, your opening sentence should be more assertive, i.e. "The two main causes of GKD are __ and ___." This more straightforward / active voice tone will be beneficial. 4. Some of your capitalization is wrong. When referring to a disorder like this, I'm almost positive that the letters should not be capitalized (except for the first word if it's at the beginning of a sentence. obviously, or if a part of the title is a person's name). Check on your mentions of DMD, adrenal hypoplasia congenita, and GKD throughout all the sections and make sure your capitalization is correct. Also, glycolysis should not be capitalized. 5. The treatment section is missing numbered links. 6. Either add external links or delete the section. Mnatoli29 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference check

1. Reference #5 has an extremely long link that is making the page wide. Try to find a way to fix this as it's messing up the formatting. Mnatoli29 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Summary: This article addresses Glycerol Kinase Deficiency. Initially, the genetic causes of GKD are introduced, then its effect on glycolysis. Symptoms are then addressed, including diseases that Glycerol Kinase Deficiency usually manifests alongside. Finally, symptom treatments are discussed, although the disease appears to be chronic and untreatable. The references seem to be scholarly and from appropriate sources, although some of the formatting is a little unwieldy.

Major

1. What is GKD? We need to know what is before we want to learn about what it caused by, treated by, its effects, et cetera. Just a quick introductory paragraph should do the trick here.

2. Split causes into 2 paragraphs instead of 1, just for readability’s sake.

3. Do not address the person who reads it as 'you'. This is way too informal. You should eliminate all use of things like 'ourselves' and any other personal pronouns—these are not acceptable for use in scholarly articles. Instead, use terms like ‘scientists’ and ‘researchers’ and ‘patients’ and other things like that to indicate more clearly who you are talking about. Additionally, use of adjectives/adverbs (ex: ‘unfortunately’) that convey opinions detract from your authority and makes the article seem less professional.

4. In the 'Effects' section you have some redundancy (ex: when you say 'the metabolic pathway of glycolysis'). This is an encyclopedia article, so you don't have to explain each term you use as long as you make it a link to the page describing that term.

5. In terms of formatting, your 'symptoms' section should (a) use a list format and (b) list more symptoms. Also, we're not quite sure which symptoms are related to which illness because of the way this section is organised.

6. Overall, we were interested but it felt like the article didn’t go into enough detail in parts that were important (what the disease is, etc) and spent too much time repeating itself rather than explaining the things that have been said. The exception to this was the glycolysis portion of the article, which was very well detailed and explains clearly what happens.

Minor

1. Diseases are proper nouns and should be capitalized as such.

2. Please proof-read, as you have some sentence-level errors sprinkled throughout the article.

3. Avoid using 'this' and 'it' and 'treatment' quite so frequently—it gets very repetitive and makes the article seem more juvenile than scholarly.

4. Avoid sentences that state the obvious. For example: 'Treatments for Glycerol Kinase Deficiency are targeted to treat the symptoms' could be reconstructed to address how the disease is chronic (if it is) and how it can't be cured so only the symptoms can be addressed

5. There needs to be consistency in titling. For example, your section in which you address ‘causes’ addresses…causes. However, the section that addresses effects is titled ‘Glycerol Kinase Deficiency’s effect on Glycolysis’, which is much less accessible.

Reference Check

1. References seem okay, except for 5, which has an incredibly long link that stretches the page, and 6, which only has a link and no other information.

Taferraro (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Haig Pakhchanian, Group 10 Analysis for Group 11 April 11, 2011 BioE120

Glycerol Kinase Deficiency

Summary: Glycerol Kinase Deficiency is a rare metabolic disease caused by the deficiency of the gene GK. GK codes for the production of glycerol kinase, an enzyme used in glycolysis to catalyze the transfer of a phosphate group from ATP to glycerol. In result, energy stored in glucose is not utilized by the human body and exits the human body in urine. Even though there is no cure for the disease, there are multiple treatments.

Major Concerns: Group 11’s article, Blycerol Kinase Deficiency, lacks an introduction. It goes straight into the causes of the deficiency without providing its background information. They provide detailed information on the topic, so it can be a potential quick fix. Group 11 can add 3-5 sentences introducing the topic by summarizing the main points of the report.

I think a few pictures and diagrams would be very helpful to understanding this idea, especially around the descriptions of the metabolic pathways, which can be very confusing when described in words. A few of the sources came with images so it should not be too hard to find a few that will be effective without cluttering the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgarcia7 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article seems a little short. They can broaden the article through the addition of such topics of: Blycerol Kinase Deficiency in other species, evolutionary advantages of the deficiency, origin of the deficiency, etc.

And lastly, group 11 should add more information on the treatment for the deficiency. This is a very important topic that focuses on a major problem for bioengineers. They state that “due to the multitude of varying symptoms of this disease, there is no specific treatment that will cure this disease altogether.” They should address current research being executed in an attempt to extinguish the deficiency after this statement. You can now turn to the concepts of bioengineering in your paper.

Minor Concerns: Group 11 should focus on using more transitions. At times it seems like they are listing facts. This would improve the flow of the article. I also noticed a lot of repetition. At times they would address an issue and rephrase it in the very next sentence.

Remove “somehow” from the first line of the second paragraph of Glycerol Kinase Deficiency’s effect on Glycolysis. Its one grammar error I noticed. Definitely proofread this paper for grammar mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haigpakh (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference Check: References 3 and 5 both gave links to a definition of the terms used however do not include a link to a scientific journal that support the information given in the Wiki article. Reference 6 was incorrectly cited, showing only a URL without any mention of anything else. References 10 and 13 were the same site, so they can be combined into one reference number, however i would recommend that a different source be found for this information because they also do not source a scientific journal Rgarcia7 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Second draft review by group 10: Much improvement! Great job. You definitely took our advice and it is now much easier to read and to comprehend. The bullets are great and the figures are nice. Introduction added very nicely introduces readers to the topic and the pictures were very illustrative and complemented the article well. Ominsnievi92 (talk) I have no major concerns. Here are a few remaining minor concerns: 1. Intro paragraph: "proposed namely infantile,juvenile, and adult" -- add a comma after proposed, and you forgot a space after infantile. 2. Your capitalization is still inconsistent. I see that the other group that reviewed your article said that diseases should be capitalized while I thought they should not, so you may want to check with our professor and make these consistent. I am sure that the average reader would have no idea what the protocol is, so it's not a big deal, but it's just a suggestion so it looks a little more professional. 3. I see that you fixed reference 5, which is great, but now reference 20 is making the page wide, so you might want to fix that. Mnatoli29 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Team 7 Second Peer Review for Team 11

Summary: Team seems to have fixed most of the problems that were detailed in the first peer review. However, there are a few minor grammatical errors and other minor issues still present in the 	       article that will be mentioned below on a section-by-section basis. Introduction: Causes: Classification: Effect on Glycolysis: Symptoms Treatment: References:
 * State the full name of NIH (National Institute of Health)
 * Include wikilinks
 * You might want to make it a bit more generic and introduce the topic a bit better
 * Make into subsections instead of bullets
 * Unnecessary to say “The first cause is” and “The second cause is”
 * Explain Xp21 since not all may be aware that it is the location of the gene on the X-chromosome
 * Include wikilinks for diseases Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Adrenal Hypoplasia Congenita
 * Grammatical error: “The adult form is also cause...”
 * Avoid the use of 'you' and 'this'
 * What is the source of the picture
 * No need to wikilink the same word multiple times in the same section (This problem is common throughout the article). The word only needs to be Wiki-linked the first time it is used.
 * Introduce the full name of ATP (Adenine Triphosphate) and ADP (Adenine Diphosphate)
 * No need to mention the full name of DHAP multiple times
 * Much better structure than the previous draft. Reads a lot better
 * A few unnecessary wikilinks like “symptoms” (This problem is common throughout the article)
 * Wikilink hyperglycerolemia
 * Reword first sentence. It is better to say that there is no cure for the disease and detail a few of the treatments used
 * Second paragraph repeats information already mentioned in the first one
 * All of them seem to be scholarly and acceptable peer-reviewed sources (Lindatq (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avinash92 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)