User talk:Akohrman22/Tumor Suppresor sandbox

MLibrarian Review
It seems to be a good expansion of the article but unfortunately a lot of things seem to be yet unfinished. I look forward to a finished version.MLibrarian (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Topic Review 1
I think you did an excellent job in explaining tumor suppressors, but I think you can say some of these things with less words. For example, in sentence one where you define a tumor suppressor gene, you can say ".. regulates the cell cycle." instead of ".. cell during cell division..".

In paragraph two of the first section, you have an incomplete sentence starting at "Lastly". You also need a comma after "Lastly". Under Two-hit hypothesis, you can use the terms heterozygous, homozygous dominant, and homozygous recessive with hyperlinks to their definitions instead of describing these words without ever stating them. In the following paragraphs in this section, I still believe it best to use the terms listed above.

Underneath examples, you can use a hyperlink for TP53.

AnnaGraceAndersAnnaGraceAnders (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Topic Review 2
First off, I think the page is well organized and you seem to talk about all the major points concerning tumor suppressors in great detail. I do not have the biological background to comment on the accuracy of the information but I can confidently say it has a very neutral stance attached to it. I also really liked all the images you added to the page. I am a big visual learner so it was immensely helpful when trying to understand your topic.

The edits I think you should make are as follows. First, make sure when inputing references it follows the style laid out in the two-hit hypothesis. Second, think about adding hyperlinks to words in your respective paragraphs that can take readers to additional wikipedia pages. This could help someone like me with little background on tumor suppressor genes facilitate my learning a bit more. Third, while I loved the images you used, a few more images on the latter parts of the page would be awesome. Lastly, just make sure you proofread the whole thing before submitting. There are occasional spelling errors and missing words. Additionally, I want to echo Anna's suggestion of trying to simplify your sentences to avoid wordiness. That would go a long way in making the page professional.

Dimccall (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Tumor Suppressor Peer Review 3
The addition of a "History" section really enhances the overall completeness of the article. Similarly, the "Clinical Interests" and "Examples" sections are a good addition to the article page. The content that has been added is all relevant to the topic, and has been presented in a neutral stance. Additionally, there newly added information is backed up by reputable citations. The addition of a figure to help illustrate the two-hit hypothesis is incredibly helpful in providing understanding to a general audience. While there are some hyperlinks, many more should be added. The full name of certain acronyms should first be used before use of the acronym (e.g. PTEN). More figures would be helpful in eventually balancing out the large amount of text, and some of the cited content should be converted into a more digestible writing style. Overall, I think your group did a great job expanding this Wikipedia article.

Brmunsay (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Topic Review 4
I was able to see that you have added a lot of information to this article including history, function, and some more examples of tumor suppressing genes. A lot of these things are still just ideas and incomplete sentences, but I can see that your group will be working on some of things in the future.

Here are some notes I made on your article: 1. The last sentence of the first paragraph, starting with "The loss of function for...," could be a lot clearer. I was confused what this sentence meant the first time I read it. You could say something like, "The loss of function for tumor suppressor genes may more significantly impact the development of human cancers than the activation of oncogenes." 2. The word "lastly" is used. Like Anna said in her review, there needs to be a comma after this word. Additionally, I was told by my English professor last year that the word "lastly" isn't actually a word and the word "finally" can be used instead. 3. The second half of the sentence beginning with "lastly" is not a complete phrase and should be something like "and when these genes are mutated, they can cause..." 4. The citations listed in the history section, and in other sections, are listed as parenthesis. Instead, you can use the cite button to insert the citation as a link and a superscript number. 5. The word "lead" is used twice in this article when the word "led" should be used instead. 6. I had a question regarding whether the RB gene mentioned at the end of the second paragraph in the "History" section was related to Retinoblastoma. While I can make this assumption, I think it should be clearly stated that this RB gene is a tumor suppressor gene for retinoblastoma. 7. The first sentence of third "history" paragraph is confusing and should be reworded. 8. The acronym TSG is mentioned in the "Functions" section, but I didn't see it defined earlier in the article. I think this should be listed previously in the article after tumor suppressor gene because I was confused at first as to what it stood for. For example: "...tumor suppressor genes (TSGs)..." 9. Some examples of TSGs could be referenced in the "Lead" section since they are mentioned later in the article.

Bluechemist22 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Meredith's comments
This is looking really good so far, but I do have a few brief comments. I think the history section needs to be condensed a bit and framed in a much more straightforward, factual manner. Also you need to clearly explain what the findings mean, if you are going to write about experiments (Cooper 2000 for example). I like that you have included it, but I think you’ve included some extraneous information.

It looks like you have some good plans for the rest of the article and I look forward to seeing the final product. Well done! Purchalm (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)