User talk:Biomedchemist/sandbox

=Response to Peer Review=

Figures
In all cases, we found the wikitext and changed the pictures from thumbnail to a uniform picture size (400 pixel). We also specifically formatted them to display on the right hand side of the page.

Additionally, we reorganized the figures to better reflect the text of the section associated with the figure. This resulted in moving the crystal structure video to the “Introduction”, and the free energy diagram to the the “Foldamer design” section. We felt ChemLibrarian’s suggestion to refer to the crystal structure in the introductory text was unnecessary as the caption of the picture is self explanatory. Furthermore, while explaining figures in text is expected in scientific literature, we feel that on Wikipedia, users most commonly read the introduction and look at the introductory picture with an assumed correlation between the two. Thus, it can be assumed that the crystal structure figure corresponds to the introduction section material.

Links to other Wikipedia pages
We agree and we added a substantial number of internal wikipedia page links to all section, especially the introduction. We also fixed the broken link to “hydrogen bonding”.

Miscellaneous Grammatical revisions
All grammatical revisions have been made.

References and links from original foldamer page
In our new sandbox design of the site that will go live, we included these references in the same organized format as previously shown in the actual foldamers page. We agree that we liked these headings and refereces as well.

We feel that we have properly represented the research field of foldamers by giving a general definition, concise examples of their application and a well rounded review of the field. Many references including books, journals and the current foldamer symposium webpage (www.foldamers.org). We found specific foldamer examples were too specific to represent the entire field, so we included them at our discretion. However, to maintain the scope that wikipedia articles provide to the readers, we felt these examples were best cited and linked for outside reading, whereas the most general and inclusive overview should exist on wikipedia.

=Peer Review 1=

Overview
I thought the article was accessible for non-experts. It gave a thorough overview without getting too technical. I believe the sections do justify its length; however, there could potentially be more added to the discussion regarding the different catagories of foldamers. After reading the article, I felt confident with what peptideomemtic and nucleotidomemtic foldamers were, but the description of abiotic foldamers does not really have a straight forward definition. Also, be sure to link the important terms to other Wikipedia pages for further references! Other than that the content of this article is very good.

I also enjoyed the figures; however, I would relocate the free energy diagram and bring back the crystal structure of a foldamer (see General Suggestions). You do not address the free energy diagram in your introduction, so I think it would be better in a discussion relating to the kinetics of foldamers. And the crystal structure just provides a nice, clear visual without require additional context from the introduction. Otherwise all of the figures are easy to read and well-aligned.

Finally, the references look great. You went above and beyond the minimum of 8 reference, and you included a wide array of sources. This not only illustrates how much time you put into this project, but it is also a reflection of all of the informative information within the article that makes it great.

General Suggestions

 * Be sure to link terms to other Wikipedia pages. I noticed that the original page had several of these links set up. The pages are not always the best (like 'oligomer' and 'noncovalent bonding interactions'), but they do still provide a brief introduction to a lot of these concepts.
 * In the final sentence of the introduction, you say "with the main goal of designing an oligomers." I think you need to take out the "an."
 * The image of a "Free energy diagram of the folding of the foldamer" is definitely interesting, but you do not really address it in the introduction. I think you should move this to a later section under "Foldamer Design," specifically under "Prediction of Folding." This way you can use it to enhance your discussion of the kinetic and thermodynamics of the folding mechanisms. I would also recommend discussing the cooperativity that is illustrated in the image more thoroughly. Or at least link to another page that discusses it.
 * In place of the free energy diagram in the introduction, I would bring back the image of the crystal structure of the foldamer that was on the original page. I think that kind of basic image is nice for the general reader and does not require a lot of additional descriptions.
 * Under "Noncovalent Interactions," for some reason the link to "Hydrogen Bonding" is bad.
 * Instead of putting the sections relating to peptideomemetic, nucleotidomemetic, and abiotic foldamers under a broader section of "Examples," I would either make them their own sections or put them under "Catagories of Foldamer Molecules."
 * Finally, the original page seemed to include a lot of external links and references listed under "Reviews" and "Further Reading." I would consider keeping these sections. Since there is so much information of foldamers, it might be a good idea to include more sources that readers could try to access that wills supplement the Wikipedia page.

Final Thoughts
Overall this article looks great. It is very informative, and packs a lot of information down into an accessible format. I did not know anything about foldamers before looking at this article, but I was able to follow along without getting lost in the terminology. But my biggest suggestion is to link the technical terms to other Wikipedia pages.

--Paracelsus22 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

=Peer Review 2= 1. While I don't think the introduction is inaccessible to the general audience, I did spend a lot of my time using wikipedia for general terms. If you use internal links, it gives the reader the chance to fully understand the article without having to individually search for the terms.

2. Is it possible to make the images bigger on the page? It wasn't the worst thing to have click on the image to make it larger, but it would be helpful. Especially with the anion binding to the oligopyrroles.

3. Would it be possible to make an image of the poly(isocyanates) or poly(prolines) and how those covalent interactions affect folding?

4. In prediction of folding, you talk about how the model is predicated computationally and then verified via an experiment. Can there be an in depth example of an experiment? I am curious myself as how they take this computational model and use an experiment.

5. With the noncovalent interactions, maybe an image of one of these interactions taking place and dictating folding.

6. Under the peptideomemtic section, make the link available for everyone. If this is a journal that the average person cannot access, (if link is not provided) or not sure how to find via google, then it does not add much to the example. especially if you are directing them to it.

7. Possible changing examples to examples of foldamers... just being a bit more descriptive with that title.

Overall, I do think this is a good article. There are just the little thinks that can make it even better. I especially liked the video. It's nice to see images in 3D and that's beneficial to the reader. In regards to your references there looked to be a good mixture of sources. Just the one reminder about the link as well as internal linking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kschemumich13 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional Comments
UMChemProfessor (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Mimetic is spelled wrong in the section titles. The figures are too small to read and need to be fixed. Love the video! The peer reviewers did an excellent job as well; pay attention to their thoughtful comments.

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 * 1) You added nice images but all of them are in thumbnail. For some places it's good but for most paragraphs, you probably want to enlarge the picture and place them at the center of the page so that people can read them without clicking on them and the whole page can flow better too. See this page Picture tutorial for how to place the image at different places and adjust the size. Other reviewers gave good input about this too.
 * 2) The video is great. But it might be a good idea to refer to it in your text with a little explanation.
 * 3) The link to Hydrogen Bonding under the Noncovalent Interactions section is broken. You can fix it by using the internal link Hydrogen Bonding.