User:Acrchan/Acetyl-CoA/Dvnyn Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Acrchan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Acrchan/Acetyl-CoA


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Acetyl-CoA

Evaluate the drafted changes
NOTE: I don't know that much about biology, so apologies if any of my notes are inaccurate.

I like the way that you made "In cellular respiration" a header under "functions" rather than a bullet point. It makes the article feel more organized. However, for consistency, all subsequent topics that aren't related to cellular respiration should have its own header as well (namely, from steroid synthesis onwards). As well, I would either define cellular respiration, or link it to the wikipedia page. I also like that you changed "allosteric regulator" into "regulation" to make it more consistent. Just make sure to add the "i" in "regulation". :)

There are a few other changes to the "functions" section that I would recommend.:


 * What is a "body" in the this context? I would definine it for the general public
 * Many sentences use unnecessary passive voice.
 * Many sentences would be much clearer if they were split in two. Especially those containing long names of enzymes or intermediates.
 * I don't see any need to include how malate is transported back into the mitochondria. It felt distracting to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Either remove this, or re-phrase to clarify why it's included in an article about acetyl-CoA.
 * "de novo" should either be defined, or replaced with non-latin phrasing.

As well, I have some suggestions for how you could improve the rest of the article:

Lead section:


 * The sentence that brings up CoASH feels very sudden/out of place. It might help to explicitly say how CoASH is related to Acetyl-CoA first.
 * It feels a bit distracting that the enzyme transforming GTP to ATP is added. I think just stating that GTP and ATP are equivalent is enough. If you'd like, you can elaborate on this later in the article, but I don't think it needs to be in the lead section.
 * Either define or add links to "cofactor" and "acetyl"
 * History (like who won the Nobel Prize) should be present both in the lead and in the body

Direct synthesis section:


 * The first sentence would feel less awkward if it were in active voice.
 * "Utilizing" should just be "using"
 * Again, many sentences would be much clearer if they were split in two.
 * Is it accurate to say acetyl-CoA is produced by glycolysis? I would think it's the pyruvate dehydrogenase complex?
 * Define or add a link to "disproportionates"

Lastly, the article in general feels very high-level and not really suitable for a general audience. If possible, it would be beneficial to have very simple descriptions of the topics with little to no jargon at the beginning. Then, have the more complex descriptions (basically what the article is now) follow for anyone who is interested (a bit like each section has its own inverted pyramid structure).

For example:

Fatty acid metabolism: (simple description)

Overall, the article topics are in a logical order and stay neutral. The image for beta-oxidation is a bit confusing to me. If can't be re-worked, I would at least make it larger. Finally, the the article is missing a couple of citations and the "functions" section feels a bit overly dependent on reference 1 (Stryer). Adding some new citations would certainly be beneficial.
 * (complex description)