User:Nmnguyen2015/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1
Telemerase

Content Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

The intro section provides great background information, however it could be better linked to outside sources for further clarification. It seems there isn't much edit to the original page. Also it could briefly summarize the rest of the wiki sections just so the reader can get a clear insight on telemerase function. Otherwise it is still very informative and thorough.

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

The sections for structure, function, clinical implications and all following examples are very well explained. The length is fine for the structure portion, I actually would like to commend you for being concise and having figures and links to outside sources. I felt for aging in the clinical implications section was a little longer than necessary, there were a couple sentences that seemed like filler just to lengthen the section and could be shortened and be made more concise. The section you added, telomerase as a potential drug, is a great section to add, It think it adds a lot to the overall relevance of the article.

§ Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

I have no qualms about your links. In fact, i think you guys did a great job linking to other wiki pages for further reference. I also appreciate your thoroughness in citing your references throughout the wiki page.

§ Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

The examples you added and decided to highlight are excellent when it came to the drug implications and various treatments. It is clear what you wanted to emphasize about the subject and they are appropriate and well explained in their sections. The only suggestion I would have is to perhaps add figures or even more examples as you see fit, but I believe you did well in this area.

§ Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

I don't believe there is much duplication here, there are some parts you took from the original wiki article but you did add a lot more in supplement. Looking at other articles I see there are some duplication in terms of subject but they are concepts that are basic to telemerase like the structure and function so there is no avoid duplication there.

Figures § Are the figures original and of high quality?

Like i stated above, I would like to see more figures if possible, it makes for better conceptualization of what you are talking about in each section. However for the images you already have, they are exteremely helpful in visualizing telemerase in the chemdraw image and it's function in the image shown in the structure section. The colors make it easy to distinguish what is what and the captions allow for the reader to understand what is being shown. I don't know exactly, if the images are original, however I don't know if it would be too much of a difference. As long as you find relative images that best portray telemerase and what you want to exemplify, an original image may not be necessary. And as for the quality I would suggest using PyMOL which I believe is accessible and free through the university.

§ Are the figures informative and add to the text?

Yes, I do believe the images are relative to the text and supply good visual representation. As stated above, if you can, try to add some more figures especially in the sections below with the clinical implications.

§ Are the Chemdraw structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read?

I believe the images are taken from the original article, but I do think they complement your information well.

References § Are the references complete (≥ 10)?

with 53 references, you allow quite the variety and show that your information is well sourced. I do think that the 10 additional references should be of your own addition instead of from the original wiki page, but you might need to ask about that. Other than that, there is good reference throughout your information.

§ Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes, they are all working scholarly articles. Some of which are not articles but I checked and they were from the original wiki page so it is not your fault.

Overall Presentation § Provide a short summary of the entire content/figures/references, highlighting both what the group did well and well as what still needs to be improved.

Overall, I think you two did a great job compiling information. Just clean up your sentences to make more concise like in your intro section. Proofread and check for typos, I think I saw a couple here and there. Add figures to make your sections understandable to readers, and continue to link to other background sources if you can, this will allow readers to reference some terms that may be confusing to them.

I like your additions to the telemerase article, especially all of your clinical implications subcategories. They flesh out the wiki page immensely and make it an interesting read. Your examples are relevant to the overall topic and are well sourced.

I think the only thing you should focus on are adding figures and more sources, especially if the 10 sources should be of your own finding. Diagrams, charts, and 3D images would be a great addition in your clinical implications section to help the reader grasp the information you are giving them. Good Job!