User:Alexniy/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 *  Article title 
 * Marie Maynard Daly
 *  Article Evaluation 
 * Lead: This is a short and concise introduction to what she accomplished, her areas of research, and the significance of her African-American background without going into significant detail before the main content.
 * Content: The chronological order of her career in the education column appeared to be non-biased and underlined her accomplishments at this early standpoint. Despite little information on her personal thoughts or musings available, this appears to give a non-biased, plain order of what she did, where, and when. I think the discussion of her career and research did a decent job of discussing what was not known yet in the field, her contributions as a minority representative in STEM, and each of the four aspects of her research.
 * Tone and Balance: Balanced and neutral without undermining her accomplishments, giving reasoned, source-backed information.
 * Sources and References: A lot of the information discusses the "unsung" nature of her career, seeing much of her recognition from the past 10-15 years (post-mortem). However, the sources related to the discussion of her research were directly from her papers, which is crucial to understanding the contributions of her work as close as possible.
 * Organization and writing quality: As discussed above, the tone is neutral, plain, and does not have much convincing/personal language.
 * Images and Media: One basic image of her as a young woman in 1947, typical of most Wikipedia biographies.
 * Talk Page Discussion: "Diversithon Berlin" appears to have made significant changes in 2019, but only after a Wikiedu assignment made the vast majority of it from a university student studying biochem!
 * Overall impression: The article does an excellent job in the underlining summary her career, where she went to Hunter College HS, and attended QC before studying at renowned NY schools. I would have liked to hear more of her personal interest in science overall (i.e. personal quotes/memoirs) if possible and if there are other sources available for this, since this is a mere summary of where she went and what she did.
 * Her research was especially involved in histones (their composition), proteins (their synthesis), nucleic acids (A,G,C,T composition), and the relationship between hypertension and atherosclerosis. However, this does not go into much detail about why it was fundamental for the field of biochemistry, in my opinion, and should be expanded upon a little despite the excellent quality of the article. Another contribution was creatine uptake by cells of the muscle. I am not sure if it is necessary to underline this, since I have limited Wiki experience Perhaps there should be an expanded legacy section?
 * My Sources
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-020-00617-7
 * Kessler, J.; Kidd, J.S.; Kidd, R.; Morin, K.A. Distinguished African-American Scientists of the 20th Century ; Oryx Press: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-020-00617-7
 * Kessler, J.; Kidd, J.S.; Kidd, R.; Morin, K.A. Distinguished African-American Scientists of the 20th Century ; Oryx Press: Phoenix, AZ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]

Option 2

 * Article title
 * BARD1
 *  Article Evaluation 
 * Lead: A short discussion of the domains, repeats, and amino acid lengths.
 * Content: Function section gos into more detail about this structure first, but then goes into a discussion on the BRCA1/BARD1 heterocomplex. The relationship between BRCA1 / BARD1 and certain motifs, proteins, and residues is discussed. DNA repair, despite this being a growing subject, has a little information about the double strand break pathway. This does not do it justice. There is a list of interactions shown, with quite a lot of references for BRCA1, as this is the most popularly studied one (and most BARD1 is associated to it). Additionally, in my opinion, there should be more on applications, or rather to rename this to Research in which recent research is discussed for the heterodimer.
 * Tone and Balance: There is nothing suggesting non-neutral language. Due to the breadth of studies associated with the heterodimer, it is difficult to zone in one a decent overview in such articles.
 * Sources and References: All of these are from peer-reviewed articles, as is typical of molecular biology, including the crystal structures.
 * Organization and writing quality: The language is clear and does not go into unnecessary detail, but mostly has information about the tumorigenic suppression qualities of the BRCA1/BARD1 heterodimer. I would have also liked more information on ubiquitin substrates outside of RNAPII, such as various histones. See "My Sources."
 * Images and Media: The "Infobox gene" is useful to many of these kinds of articles, providing a basic crystal structure that provides a nice overview of the domains/features discussed in the article.
 * Talk Page Discussion: No information is shown, just a WikiProject banner for class = stub in the source page, despite its status as more of a C class.
 * Overall impression:
 * BRCA1-associated RING domain protein 1 (BARD1) is significant because most, if not all, of it is associated with BRCA1 in-vivo. This has significant function in ubiquitination of various substrates which contribute to tumorigenic regulation/suppression. The article does an excellent job of summarizing the main features of BRCA1, but does not discuss in significant detail the function of BRCA1/BARD1 complex. However, this may just be due to a knowledge gap we have not found any answers to (outside of tumorigenic suppression?) However, there is a short section on DNA repair role based on homologous recombination. I would have liked to know about more info based on certain interactions listed in the "Interactions" section, such as P53 or CSTFs, since these have significant applications in their study.
 * I am also curious to know if there are other practical applications of this besides the K619 residue inhibition that was mentioned.
 * Another issue I have is that these are relatively older articles noting BARD1 features, but there aren't many discussing the latest research on BRCA1-BARD1's role as an E3 ubiquitin ligase in the past several years (2020s) from Nature and other reputable sources.
 * My Sources
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03716-8 Linking H2A N-terminal and C-terminal ubiquitylation, an explanation of BRCA1-BARD1 HR function based on 53BP1 competition (antagonization). BRCA1/BARD1 often promotes homologous recombination as a pathway, which competes with this other pathway led by 53BP1.
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37823591/ From 2023: BRCA1/BARD1 acting as a bridge of adjacent nucleosomes.
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03716-8 Linking H2A N-terminal and C-terminal ubiquitylation, an explanation of BRCA1-BARD1 HR function based on 53BP1 competition (antagonization). BRCA1/BARD1 often promotes homologous recombination as a pathway, which competes with this other pathway led by 53BP1.
 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37823591/ From 2023: BRCA1/BARD1 acting as a bridge of adjacent nucleosomes.

Option 3

 * Article title
 * ELAV-like protein 1, or Human Antigen R
 *  Article Evaluation 
 * Lead: A short discussion of nomenclature, and generally just saying the number of domains/where it binds to vaguely.
 * Content: Nothing outside of lead (stub).
 * Tone and Balance: Neutral
 * Sources and References: Most sources are in "Further reading," and interestingly, much of this information is about HuR's relationship to anti-tumorigenic transcripts and oncogenes, suggesting maybe a separate section on cancer would suffice.
 * Organization and writing quality: The organization could be improved upon, especially with the disproportionately large "Further reading section" that does not have much of a theme
 * Images and Media: No media except for Infobox gene, containing some pictures on location, links to PDB structures, etc.
 * Talk Page Discussion: Nothing of note.
 * Overall impression:
 * This appears to be a low-level information article, despite having a lot of references to potentially draw from. There is little information on its practicality in research, or generally its natural role in protein metabolism. There is significant evidence from the past 5-10 years for its role in mRNA stability that I would like to discuss.
 * This is research that I feel I am knowledgeable in, and although it may be more apt to research this in other sources than Wikipedia for potential curious readers, it may be useful to be able to link HuR as a substrate on a BRCA1 or BARD1-related article.
 * There is also no specific structure that is provided from a PDB source. This could help to legitimize the article a bit. I could figure out how to add this.
 * My Sources
 * Potential therapeutic for liver diseases https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661820302954?casa_token=93OjFmDEKagAAAAA :PKol3-S-SsHJdSNvnfjiWgq1i3lzg_K8tzQJJ3lElQx1lW8o1aytIWWbIId3bGoXqrIftcfKiG0
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959437X12001505
 * Mechanisms in coordinating ELAV/Hu mRNA regulons
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014579315001891
 * C-terminal RNA Recognition Motif of HuR
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720722000065?casa_token=fHXwaZdFA1kAAAAA :Dm8phAdUP4J_-G6ANW6j_-jzjGib-HXWntMAMKvKp--jPGupCybDR-kpdMmFstf_RyZQEVoILAE
 * HuR as regulator of osteogenesis in diabetic osteoporosis.
 * https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/14/5/10015?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr
 * HuR localization between nucleus and cytoplasm, autoregulation, function, and expression.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540328/
 * HuR function in disease. There is a discussion of binding to AREs in UTR of mRNA. There are also domains that are not discussed in Wikipedia, but are thoroughly established and crucial to this research.
 * **There are tons of relationships based on SUMOylation, ubiquitination, inflammation, etc. that are related to HuR therapies and functions that could be discussed!
 * I would also like to take advantage of the already present references which were not expanded upon thoroughly, such as the 1996 characterization/cloning article of HuR which appears to discuss the basic structure, rather than function.
 * https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/14/5/10015?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr
 * HuR localization between nucleus and cytoplasm, autoregulation, function, and expression.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540328/
 * HuR function in disease. There is a discussion of binding to AREs in UTR of mRNA. There are also domains that are not discussed in Wikipedia, but are thoroughly established and crucial to this research.
 * **There are tons of relationships based on SUMOylation, ubiquitination, inflammation, etc. that are related to HuR therapies and functions that could be discussed!
 * I would also like to take advantage of the already present references which were not expanded upon thoroughly, such as the 1996 characterization/cloning article of HuR which appears to discuss the basic structure, rather than function.
 * **There are tons of relationships based on SUMOylation, ubiquitination, inflammation, etc. that are related to HuR therapies and functions that could be discussed!
 * I would also like to take advantage of the already present references which were not expanded upon thoroughly, such as the 1996 characterization/cloning article of HuR which appears to discuss the basic structure, rather than function.
 * I would also like to take advantage of the already present references which were not expanded upon thoroughly, such as the 1996 characterization/cloning article of HuR which appears to discuss the basic structure, rather than function.

Option 4

 * Article title
 * CstF1, commonly as CstF50
 *  Article Evaluation 
 * Lead: Some information on the polyadenylation-related function and its analogue to G protein beta (similar to transducin, as seen in Bchem II lecture).
 * Content: N/A, stub article.
 * Tone and Balance: N/A, neutral/not much information.
 * Sources and References: Similar to HuR, there is a large "Further reading" section section that could be put into the article itself, or the most important parts could be summarized. The actual References page lists a source by Dr. Kleiman, noting the CstF-50 as a common co-factor of the BRCA1/BARD1 complex, linking the other ideas I have had. Perhaps there is a way to go into more discussion about this information and how it plays overall into the gene.
 * Organization and writing quality: Following convention, there is a short "Interactions" section, but this does not contain significant information about function.
 * Images and Media: There is only an Infobox gene, but no crystal structure.
 * Talk Page Discussion: Nothing available, noted as low importance as a molecular bio article.
 * Overall impression:
 * There is little information except for basic structure. There is a note that CSFF1 is known to interact with BARD1. There is information on its role as a polyadenylation factor, BRCA1/BARD1 complex, etc. I would like to write more information on its roles in polyadenylation, recent research from the past two decades, and other crucial information that has not been expanded upon. Most of this information is found on the "Further reading section," but most of it is from the 1990s. I believe more information on interactions and function should be added, rather than the basic structure of it and the biochemical holoprotein complex.
 * My Sources
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5789026/ From 2018, its role in BRCA1/BARD1 as a cofactor involved in chromatin remodeling.
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03816-4 Stabilization of the domain motion of BRCA1/BARD1 by CstF50.
 * https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/C1L516/entry Infomation on structure and subcellular localization that could be useful.
 * https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wrna.1571?casa_token=nSiA5EZXNZsAAAAA%3AGPYR_c6l7FTss5Zq9Ru_7DYHEJWn_-PYuNwSAMzS6pKMhPlFmLPXd_UzCH-IREjT6hrC7YUs53DIgdH2
 * Expansion of sources on the relationship btween this cleavage factor and RNAP II (RNA polymerase II)
 * A 3D-image of the protein could also be added directly onto the article.
 * https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wrna.1571?casa_token=nSiA5EZXNZsAAAAA%3AGPYR_c6l7FTss5Zq9Ru_7DYHEJWn_-PYuNwSAMzS6pKMhPlFmLPXd_UzCH-IREjT6hrC7YUs53DIgdH2
 * Expansion of sources on the relationship btween this cleavage factor and RNAP II (RNA polymerase II)
 * A 3D-image of the protein could also be added directly onto the article.
 * A 3D-image of the protein could also be added directly onto the article.
 * A 3D-image of the protein could also be added directly onto the article.

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Gaseous Mediator
 *  Article Evaluation 
 * Lead: This is defined as a stub on the official biochemistry stub page on Wikipedia. The only information on this is that NO, H2S, and CO are well-known gaseous mediator which are produced in small amounts by cells of the mammalian body.
 * Content: NA, stub
 * Tone and Balance: Neutral information, no convincing involved about the properties of the drug.
 * Sources and References: Despite there being few statements, all are clearly backed up in the References section.
 * Organization and writing quality: There is only a lead with a short Clinical Applications section that has clear, plain language about its popular uses.
 * Images and Media: None
 * Talk Page Discussion: Wiki Education-supported.
 * Overall impression:
 * Since this is something we hae discussed in the end of the biosignaling unit of our lecture, I believe it is worthy to say more about the details of how these work, or at least provide a better overview on the common features of these gaseous mediators.
 * Importantly, clinical applications could also be expanded more to discuss how these endogenous mediators could be utilized. However, mostly combinatory gaseous mediators, rather than individual ones, are mentioned. I could follow this convention and go more into detail. One article has a comprehensive overview of various gaseous mediator targets ( https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/7/3669 ) and their applications in therapeutics. I could use this to expand on the section a little more, or add more subsections to discuss the therapeutics in modern medicine/research that is currently going on.
 * As a matter of fact, it may be too broad a topic to warrant this overview as a stub, which is why I am hesitant to expand upon this, since each gaseous mediator often has their own section on medical applications. Still, based on this article, there is much to say on their common themes that could be interesting.
 * My Sources
 * https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/7/3669 Aforementioned therapeutics overview
 * https://journals.lww.com/mgar/fulltext/2024/14030/neuroprotective_effects_of_hydrogen_sulfide_in.13.aspx Applications in H2S and neurodegenerative disease Parkinson's.
 * https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/7/3669 Aforementioned therapeutics overview
 * https://journals.lww.com/mgar/fulltext/2024/14030/neuroprotective_effects_of_hydrogen_sulfide_in.13.aspx Applications in H2S and neurodegenerative disease Parkinson's.

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }