Talk:Polyadenylation/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Well written?


 * RNAs are a type of DNA-like molecules. - A bit vague maybe say "Like DNA, ...."
 * "Nucleotides are the individual units that make up RNA." - Seems out of sequence, deal with structure first and types later?
 * "transcription is the synthesis of RNA from a DNA template" - also needs to be earlier, an explanation with another explanation nested within it is confusing.


 * Starting the section on "Nuclear polyadenylation" with the sentence "The poly(A) tail protects the mRNA molecule from enzymatic degradation in the cytoplasm" is confusing. You need to state at the start of each section what the subject is - expand and explain the section title.
 * "Failure of polyadenylation can result in human disease" - if you are going to mention this, it needs to be an independent subsection.


 * I'll rearrage the primer section. The history section looks good. I don't like your changes to the evolution section, PNPase doesn't really create polyA tails nor is an integral part of the mechanism (only in some of the cases). And all domains of life don't have polyadenylation, not even all have PNPase. And the additions to the lead don't increases the understanding of polyA much imo (the rewordings are good though) I didn't add "Failure of polyadenylation can result in human disease", though I like the ref. The subject is too broad though for inclusion, there'd be a large mix of genetic diseases with little to do with each other and not really having much to do with polyadenylation. Maybe make a further reading section instead. Narayanese (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, please see all my edits as suggestions - I'm much more of a biochemist than a molecular biologist! I've reworded the first sentence of the evolution section a bit more and added PMID 9242905 to give a better review of the instances of poly(A) in prokaryotes. I was trying to edit the evolution section so that the connections between the facts were more apparent, but if I didn't quite hit on what these were please revise it some more. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is semantics and scope more than facts. A solution would for me to add a little section on heteropoymeric tails. Though "component of polyadenylation system" doesn't seem quite right. Narayanese (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that seems a good solution. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * endonucleolytic cleavage, used without definition.
 * The protein CFII is also involved in cleavage somehow - a weak statement. The protein CFII is needed for the cleavage reaction, but its role is not yet known?
 * and promotes it to terminate transcription - poor wording


 * Factually accurate?: Pass
 * Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * Article stability?: Pass
 * Images?: Pass

Tim Vickers (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to review it, and thanks for the history and occurrence additions.
 * I'd rather keep mitochondria out of the lead, those that have been studied are so diverse that little can be generalised. Narayanese (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)