Talk:Nucleic acid structure

Massive reorganization of biomolecular structure articles
As a result of a proposal at WT:MCB, DNA structure and RNA structure now redirect here. The articles formerly with those names have been moved to Nucleic acid secondary structure Nucleic acid double helix and Biomolecular structure respectively. Antony-22 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Additions to the article
Hello all. I am working on adding more information on the secondary strucuture, mainly focusing on the different forms of DNA (A, B and Z) and then the interactions and importance of the major and minor grooves. But I was wondering if someone could help me with how to move the images so the article flows better. I attempted to get them to the right side of the page but all my attempts seem to fail. Myaworsk (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Michelle. I moved the pictures to the right. Please let me know if they appear as you want them to.Monicamcoulter (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Monica
 * Here's a nice tutorial for how to position figures in an article: Picture_tutorial.  Klortho (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the different type of double helix are examples of tertiary structure, not secondary. Secondary structure refers only to the existance of base pairing without regard to how that base pairing influences the three-dimensional structure of the double helix.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Antony - thanks for the comment but I'm not sure we are saying that the double-helix is a secondary structure but rather a double helix is formed. Please let me know if I am missing something. Thanks again! Monicamcoulter (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Monica


 * No worries, you had mentioned the different types of double helix in the secondary structure section but it's now in the tertiary structure section where it belongs. One other thing: it would be helpful if instead of putting all the references near the bottom, you used footnotes so that we know what statements are supported by what source.  A good rule of thumb around here is to have at least one reference per paragraph.  Thanks!  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

figures indicate that a textbook may help with technical accuracies.80.192.103.174 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)mythole

Hey Guys - I fixed the inline citations & moved the references from the further reading section. I addressed Klortho's comments but we may still want to expand on nucleic acid sequence. I also think the quaternary structure section still needs work.Monicamcoulter (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Monica

Peer-reviewers checking in!
Hi Group 81D,

This is Group 81A, here to check in as your reviewers. I think the organization and flow of information of your article nucleic acid structure looks good so far. I also think it transitions nicely from primary structure through quaternary structure in addition to the images. I will continue to review the article and provide feedback where applicable. Happy editing! Thanks. Dgambrah (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello group 81D, Along with Derrick, I am also one of your reviewers. I also agree that the organization and flow of your article is great. I also really like how you have so many images incorporated with your article. If someone were looking to your article to get a better understanding of nucleic acid structure they would really gain a lot of useful information and I think the pictures really help with the explanation. Maybe another topic to include in your article could be what happens to the structure when mutations occur. My only real concern with the article is the lack of references. Keep up the good work and work on those references! I look forward to seeing the final article! BCoss1 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Final week mini-review
Hi, guys. Here's a final-week mini-review of your page. It is just a few random notes, that I jotted down while skimming the page, and is not intended as a comprehensive review.


 * References are in bad shape! You need to use inline citations, and you need to provide references for all the main points in the text. Most of the content you've added has no inline citations.  You should know how to do this by now.  This is probably the most important thing when editing a Wikipedia article (even more important than getting the content right!)
 * Under "Primary structure": You have a note beside uracil that it's only present in RNA.  Shouldn't you likewise have a note beside thymine that it's only present in DNA?
 * Under "Primary structure": "5-carbon sugar which is called deoxyribose since it is lacking an oxygen group on one of its carbons."  The bit about deoxyribose is only true of DNA.  This article covers both DNA and RNA, so you need to be clear with these kinds of statements.
 * "The nitrogen bases are pyrimidine in structure ...". What is a pyrimidine?  You should introduce new terms before you use them.  Also, is this true, in general?  What about the purines?  Similarly, for "glycosidic bond", and other technical terms, you should either try to introduce them first, or at least to make them an intra-wikipedia link (a link to the corresponding Wikipedia page for that concept).
 * Still under "primary structure", you talk a good bit about the detailed nature of the chemical bonds, but what about the more general but important concepts like complementarity, the fact that the 3' - 5' goes in opposite directions on each strand, and that kind of thing? You should take a look through the main article (Nucleic acid sequence) on this, and steal some of the main concepts there, and just summarize them here (and don't forget to copy over the references!)
 * Under "Secondary structure", why, in the second sentence, do you start talking about primary structure? Maybe that's a typo?
 * In "The purines are Adenine and Guanine. It consist of ...", what does "it" refer to? This is pronoun ambiguity.  You should replace "it" with "Purines".

Klortho (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Klortho - thanks for the comments! I did address the issues that you brought to our attention. Hopefully it is has been improved.Monicamcoulter (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Monica


 * Okay, great. Keep in mind that it was just a mini-review, and, as I mentioned, not intended to be comprehensive.  I'd suggest you continue to read and review your own article with an eye for these kinds of issues, and continue to work on it as much as you can before the end of the semester, which is Saturday. Klortho (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Final Peer-Review
I think the group has done a great job improving this article. I think you have taken Klortho's comments and pretty much improved them all. Besides the flow of the article being really great, I really think all the pictures you have incorporated into the article really helps explain what you are trying to say. The are only 2 things that I think could be added to this article. The first idea is to maybe make a new section to talk about what happens when there are mutations in the nucleic acid structure and the effects of these mutations. The second is to maybe incorporate some kind of cartoon/video in addition to all your pictures because it would really help the user to see a 3-D and interactive view of your topic. I found one on Wikimedia Commons for the article I am working on. This is a place you could potentially find something that would further benefit your article. Other then those two suggestions, I think you guys have done a great job!!! BCoss1 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the group has done a great job! That said, here are some suggestions that I thought the group could consider to further improve the article. I thought the group could insert a table to include contents for the following areas:


 * Secondary Structures and Properties of Fibrous Proteins
 * Structure
 * Characteristics
 * Examples


 * These are simply suggestions. Again, great job! And thanks. Dgambrah (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)