User talk:Biochem153aj/sandbox

Reviewer A

'''Does the article flow well? Well Organized?''' The article is well-organized, but the flow could be better. I think shortening sentences and eliminating some information could lead to a smoother reading experience.

'''Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?''' The level of detail is sometimes overwhelming. I am not sure how such a complex subject could be summarized with a lower level of detail though.

Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? Information appears to be in the appropriate sections. No information seemed redundant upon reading.

Does each section stand alone? Each section can be understood without having to read the other sections. When the author does reference other sections, they provide some context so that the reader is not confused.

Is it neutral? No statements appear to contain any noticeable bias. The author presents information in an objective tone and makes sure to reference the controversy surrounding amino acid metabolism in plants. Is everything cited? Although the hyperlinks for articles were included at the end of each section, there are no in-text citations. Remember to include these in the final draft.

Are there grammatical errors? I fixed some small grammatical errors. There were no glaring grammatical errors that led to a reduction in understanding, but maybe consider shortening sentences so as to remove the number of commas. Too many commas can lead to confusion for the reader. What images would be useful? Images of the methylcitrate cycle, the TCA cycle, and Gen5 could provide readers with a greater understanding of the subject matter. Perhaps pictures of some of the enzymes mentioned could be included as well. All images are explained clearly The pictures provided are explained clearly.

Is it clear? The article could be made a little more clear. In some cases, this could be achieved through rephrasing/shortening of sentences. In other cases, elimination of some detail may be in order.

Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? All of the information included in the article appears to be relevant to the topic. The author appears to provide a wide array of information relating to the various ways in which cells utilized propionyl-CoA.

Scientific inaccuracy Although I am not familiar with the molecule and the complex enzymatic pathways it undergoes, none of the sections seemed to contain glaring scientific inaccuracies. Always make sure to double-check the accuracy of these statements, as you are now the most familiar with the topic.

Mkoger (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer B
•	Does the article flow well? Well Organized?

Organization is good.

•	Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?

The level of detail fluctuates a lot. The article would be greatly improved with explanations of what other mentioned molecules are/what they do, or at least by including links to pages for those molecules.

•	Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?

Yes

•	Does each section stand alone?

Yes

•	Is it neutral?

Yes

•	Is everything cited?

Yes

•	Are there grammatical errors?

Yes, some. I have edited them.

•	What images would be useful?

Included images are very good, but I would include images for >every< mechanism that you describe in detail.

•	All images are explained clearly

Yes

•	Is it clear?

Not very (especially when giving technical info about mechanism)

•	Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

A lot of irrelevant info, not sure if relevant info is missing

•	Scientific inaccuracy

None that I can tell

Here is a more detailed review of your text, since I don't find the rubric to be adequate. Bolded terms need to be defined. Italicized phrases need to be elaborated upon since it is not clear what you are referring to.

[Within the Citric Acid Cycle, Propionyl-CoA, which interacts with methylcitrate, is also catalyzed into methylmalonyl-CoA by carboxylation by Propionyl-CoA carboxylase (PCC). Methylmalonyl-CoA is later transformed to succinyl-CoA to be further used in the tricarboxylic acid cycle. The reaction of propionyl-CoA to methylmalonyl-CoA not only includes carboxylation, but the catalysis of several different amino acids and fatty acids as well. It was further shown that propionyl-CoA transformation is inhibited with the absence of several TCA markers, such as glutamate.]

This section could be improved with explanations. Explaining why each step of the mechanism is needed/why it is important to the overall reaction would be good. Also, why is it significant that propionyl-coA transformation is inhibited by absence of TCA markers?

[Beta-oxidation of odd chain fatty acids: Propionyl-CoA, a three-carbon structure, is considered to be a minor species. Therefore, odd-number chain of fatty acids are oxidized to yield both propionyl-CoA as well as acetyl-CoA. As described above, propionyl-CoA is later converted into succinyl-CoA through PCC by the use of vitamin B12.]

I don't see vitamin B12 mentioned anywhere. Missing reference? Also not sure what you are trying to say with "therefore, odd-number chain..."

I think you can probably make a new section specifically for the various ways propionyl-coA is produced, instead of having individual sections for production from certain amino acids.

The metabolism in bacteria section seems overly specific and unnecessary. You should instead write a section specifically about the Toxicity of Proprionyl-CoA with multiple sources supporting that it is toxic in many different organisms (not just one bacterium).

The Methylcitrate Cycle section should have figures showing the reaction pathway. The description is too long and detailed and does not explain it adequately.

The Myobacterium Tuberculosis Metabolism section seems to be unnecessary, like the other section I mentioned above.

Other metabolism section and human enzyme section seem to consist of only abstracts of individual published papers and their conclusions/findings are not general enough to include in a wikipedia article.

Azhou0 (talk)