Talk:Protein/GA2

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

Below is my review of the article.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1. Something is not right here: 'The side chains of the standard amino acids, detailed in the list of standard amino acids, have different chemical properties that produce three-dimensional protein structure and different reactivities, are therefore critical to protein function'. I am not sure what but it sounds confusing.
 * Have reworded that sentence. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. I would also like to see a couple of sentences on methods of studies in the lead.
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. 'Due to the chemical structure of the individual amino acids, the protein chain has directionality' needs citation. It would be nice if you provide a link or explanation to directionality.
 * I dropped that sentence, as the sentence that follows is all that's really needed for a basic explanation of the concept.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1. The sentence in the lead: '..proteins are essential parts of organisms and participate in every process within cells'. 'Every process' phrase can be challenged.
 * I've added the qualifier "virtually every" so it's still mostly all-encompassing, but less definitive. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Still, there are a few completely unsourced paras in the main text.
 * Have added a number of general textbook references to cover most of these paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:




 * In general, the article is very well written with no other MOS issues, or any other gaping holes. Thanks - DSachan (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for the review. Sasata (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proteins typically contain a single amino acid, that sort of thing...
The article often makes the common mistake of describing proteins as containing amino acids or being polymers of aminoacids or that sort of thing. The O-terminal residue is an amino acid, but the remaining residues are not. The novice reader might not appreciate what is really going on. The problem is communicating literalness vs you-know-what-I-mean-ness, the latter being easier to understand. One way around this problem is to use the cumbersome "amino acid residue." vs amino acid.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The same "mistake" made by 100s of general biochemistry texts written before this; I prefer to call it a "simplification". I would think that most people reading this article desire a basic understanding of the subject matter, and are not concerned with precise – and possible confusing – semantics. Of course, the PhDs who stop by and see the statement "The sequence of amino acids in a protein...." may scoff and understand that this statement is a gross simplification at best, and incorrect usage of the term amino acid at the worst. But the article isn't written for PhDs, it's a very general overview of the topic for the general reader. However, this is a wiki, so you are more than welcome to change the text to make it "correct". Cheers Sasata (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice points, I wasn't trying to be snooty, just trying to envision if this is an article where WE might want to improve upon the textbooks since we have the advantage of diverse authorship. But the operative term "simplification" is a good one since we seek communication. I couldn't think of a reason why non-experts would really care to distinguish precursors from monomers since peptides hydrolyze to give the aa's anyway.  It will be interesting to see how articles on other condensation polymers are handled - polynucleic acids, polysaccharides, and even polyesters themeselves. Biopolymer is a little rough, but does a good job as well. A quick glance suggests that these articles are not as refined as protein, but they do seem to distinguish precursors from monomers.  One could construct a subsection for this article on polymer chemist's view of polypeptides, a project that is worth considering in the future. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping to help bring this highly-viewed article to FA-status in the not-to-distant future, and there's room for expansion; your suggestion sounds like it could fit in there nicely. If you have any thoughts on other areas you think should be expanded, please let me know–it's such a vast subject area it will be difficult choosing what to put in. Sasata (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)