User talk:Boydr/sandbox

TERF2 Peer Review 1
Overall the additions to the original page of TERF2 protein are excellent. The original page on this topic contains very limited information. The group managed to add 3 big paragraphs of relevant information on protein structure, functions, and interactions. They also added two figures to illustrate concepts presented on the page. Here are my thoughts that may be able to help the group to improve the page:

1. Instead of just saying TERF 2 in the page heading, it is useful to include the full name: Telomeric repeat-binding factor 2 too.

2.The background section can be incorporated into the introductory paragraph right after the page heading since this section provide some general information about the protein.

3. I notice that there are 4 domains mentioned in the structure and domain page, and also a few different functions in the function section. It will be easier to navigate and find the specific domain/function if the group could create subsections/subheadings for each domain and function under their respective section. Making the name of domain and keywords relating to the function bold helps too.

4. I like the pictures you put up. They are easy to understand and illustrate the concepts well. However, I think a picture about the structure of TERF 2 should be included too, just like the one on the original page.

5. It will be great to keep the link the the shelterin protein complex page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelterin) as it will help understanding TERF2’s role in the complex. You can even elaborate more on TERF 2’s specific functions within the complex. It can be a subsection under the Function section. Maybe explain why TERF2 is important to the complex.

6. Some terms used on the page have their own Wiki Page. It is worth linking them so the readers have access to more information which can help them understand concepts presented on the page. Examples of these terms are: telomere, T-loop, ATM kinase.

7. More potential items to include on the page: - clinical significance of the protein - Diseases relating to TERF 2 - Expand more on the interactions with other proteins and the specific functions of the protein

Shirleycaly (talk)

TERF2 Peer Review - Aishawarya Singh
First off, comparing the old Wikipedia page to the new/sandbox Wikipedia page, the sandbox page is much more clear and easy to understand. It also has much more information regarding the TERF2 protein.

When looking at the introductory section, I looked for a high-level overview of the TERF2 protein, what its role is, and a few additional facts about it. I thought that the first paragraph was easy to read and understand, and I liked the background on how the protein was named. However, moving on to the second paragraph, there were too many specific details and it became much more technical and confusing to read. Furthermore, the background section makes it seem as if the reader should already be familiar with the TERF1 protein, since there are many comparisons made to it, but it makes it difficult for a non-expert to understand. I also think that linking the TERF1 protein to its Wikipedia page would be helpful and bring more clarity to the average reader. Moving on, I thought that if you placed the “function” section after the background, it would make the page flow better, since I was curious about what exactly the TERF2 protein does, before I was curious about the structure and its domains. I think that you could add more links to reference specific topics used in your Wikipedia page, to other Wikipedia pages. For example, I think for increased clarity to the reader you should link the TERF2 gene, Myb-domain, telomeres, shelterin protein complex, and SLX4 (given there are existing Wikipedia pages for each of them). So, overall I think your group could add more highlighted words, but the ones you have so far are helpful. I don’t think that your content is duplicative of anything that already exists on Wikipedia; it is very specific and there is not much information about TERF2 on Wikipedia as of right now.

Next, I think the contents justify the sections lengths, however, I think breaking the sections up into sub-sections would help the reader follow along a little better. For example, in the “structure” section, you can add in subsections based on each domain. Also, you could possibly add a section about complications/defects that arise when the TERF2 protein does not function properly -- you go over it briefly in the function section, however, maybe elaborate on that.

Overall, I like the figures your group has added, they’re easy to interpret and understand. I think you should add a figure that shows the TERF2 protein’s interaction with the telomeric loop though. I think that the figure in the “structure” section is very helpful for readers to visualize what is being relayed in the text. I think the figure in the “interactions” section also looks very well done, and is easy to interpret.

Moving on to references, I think the first paragraph needs a reference. There are also more than 5 references. But the references are all of journal sources, there are no non-journal sources used. Overall, the Wikipedia page looks well done, however, there are a few improvements that could be made! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh135 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

TERF2 Peer Review3 -- Shea Ransford
When looking at the original page for TERF2 compared to your updated and edited page, the difference in pure content is excellent. While the original Wikipedia page has minimal background information and very on the function of the telomere repeat-binding factor 2, the edited version provides a much more detailed version on the origins and general information on TERF2 as well as entire expansive sections on structure, domain, and function.

However, there are times in the page where the writing veers off the technical voice that Wikipedia articles are known for. Beginning with your background paragraphs -- you said that "Telomere repeat-binding factor 2 is a protein that is present at telomeres throughout the cell cycle." I feel that it should have read more professionally, such as "Telomere repeat-binding factor 2 (TERF2) is a protein found at telomeric DNA repeats within the cell and is responsible for telomeric maintenance and protection against end-to-end fusion of chromosomes." When you're giving a background segment on a Wikipedia page, people want the most information as possible in those first few sentences. You want it to be a general summary of what the rest of the page is going to cover. When I personally look up wikipedia articles, if the information I need is not in those first few sentences or paragraph I generally will try a different source. You want to make this experience optimal for anyone wishing to learn about TERF2. Furthermore, you should probably use the title of your page as "Telomere Repeat-Binding Factor 2 (TERF2). You want the reader to know exactly what TERF2 stands for as quickly as possible. Other instances of this break in purely scientific analysis of TERF2 are instances of saying "...similar, but not identical, to..." in your first paragraph.  When something is similar to something else, it is already implied that it is not identical, so there is no need to explain that information.  You should also look out for changes in verb tense when you are talking in the background section.  You tend to switch between present and past tense in your verb use, and there are instances where you use words that are not necessary.  "It was first reported in 1997 in the lab of Titia de Lange..." --> "First reported by Titia de Lange (et al) in 1997..."   You can find ways to be more concise and make the page as straightforward as possible. This is not supposed to be an english essay -- it is a technical analysis of a specific RNA topic. There is no need to use plush or superfluous language. Just get the message across as quickly as possible and as easily as possible.

Structure and Domain Analysis: --Don't use "crucial" in your opening sentence. Again, you're going for a technical and professionalized analysis. Don't create a biased view. "There are four (you should also write out any number that takes less than two words to write -- that is just a rule for general english) domains on the TERF2 protein that allow it to bind to other proteins in the sheltering complex and to specific types of DNA." Simple changes like that will make your page read much like other Wikipedia pages. You want to make it as indistinguishable as possible. Other than issues on voice and grammar (remember your verb tense should not change!) the information you provide in this section is both ample and easy to follow. The picture also does a nice job picturing these four domains and allows the reader to see precisely how this TERF2 sequence is laid out. Another thing I would look for is links to other wikipedia pages for the TERF2 gene, Myb-domain, telomeres, and SLX4 -- given that there are Wikipedia pages for these sources. It would be helpful, considering that this is the first time using these terms, to provide necessary links when needed.

Function Analysis: Again, I would advise you to check for the opportunity to shorten some of your sentences or to be concise in any way. The information you provide is well written and detailed in comparison to the old version, but there are instances of changed verb tense or extra, flowery, language that takes away from the professionalism of the piece. That being said, once you begin discussing the more detailed aspects of the function for TERF2 you do a nice job of remaining unbiased and passive while still providing the necessary information. You middle two paragraphs in this section are nicely written and seem to be precisely what a Wikipedia article should entail. Remember to add a link to dsDNA - as that has its own Wikipedia article and would be informative for anyone wishing to know more about the subject. Also, just in general, remember to always write out something fully before using an abbreviation. For instance, you should have talked about double stranded DNA (dsDNA). Never assume that someone knows what your abbreviation stands for.

Interactions Analysis: This section is the most polished out of all of them in my opinion. Your picture, again, is very nicely done and definitely portrays exactly what it should. You provide the reader with much more information than the original page and are both concise and informative. My one problem here is that while you do a nice job of including Wikipedia links to other page sources throughout your edited page, in this section you only use it to link at the end when you are giving examples of different interactions. References to the pages for maybe the Apollo nuclease and maybe the F120 or F142 residues would be helpful.

Overall, your page is well done and provides much more information than originally provided. Your pictures (although I cannot tell if they are completely original) are well placed and extremely informative with respect to the information they are attempting to summarize. However, I would have liked to see the picture of the structure - as was provided in the original Wiki page). Other than that, there is nothing wrong with your pictures.  Another overall suggestion is to make use of subsections.  Specifically for your Structure section, you could have broken your four domains into four subsections that would have made it easier to follow for the reader.  Simple things like that go a long way. Your references are complete and inclusive of everything necessary for a wikipedia article and are also cited well in your edited page.  In general just remember to check over your grammar and syntax!  Try to be concise yet informative, and make sure that intro paragraph is jam packed with everything the reader would want to know when searching for TERF2.  That is generally the only thing most people read. Nice job, and I hope the comments help you out!

SheaBayBay3 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Shea Ransford

Additional comments from the librarians
Generally, this looks pretty good to me. I'd suggest eliminating your Background section, collapsing the first paragraph into the article summary and the second into the "Structure and Domains" section. The article would also benefit from additional linking of technical terms to their existing Wikipedia articles: Homodimer, for example. ScottMLibrary (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)