User talk:DocJML/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1
Content: The introductory passage written appears to be straightforward and provides a good explanation of argonaute proteins are, and what they are involved in (Prefect!). (The word "funge" might be spelled wrong and linked to a wrong Wiki page. Please check). Each sub heading is well defined and described in good detail. It is clear and understandable by a wide range of audience. Under "Argonaute in RNA interference" the last line of the first paragraph should probably be "... gene silencing, caused by Argonaute." Second paragraph last line needs a word that has to be inserted, "The other single-stranded (insert word) is degraded...". Third paragraph second sentence, "stand" should be replaced with "strand". If possible try to shorten this sub heading. Maybe you could omit or cut short the last two paragraphs. Moving onto the sub heading "Family Member", try to make it a little more informative.

Most important words and phrases have been linked appropriately. One word that I am not sure is "complementarity". Maybe consider taking out the link all together or linking it to the exact site where the definition that you would like the reader to know can be found. The examples seemed to fit well and were explained clearly as well. I do not think that there was any major information that was duplicative.

Figures: I believe the figure is the same one that is on the current Wikipedia page. Maybe confirm with Dr. Walter if that is ok. The figure allows the reader to get an idea of what an argonaute protein looks like. It specifically refers the gene family that encodes for Piwi domain, which is discussed in the text. It is definitely helpful to have it on the page to give the reader a good sense of view. The quality is good and the caption is short and to the point. There is a second picture on the page that is also well done, but again check to make sure that it is ok to use it because it is present on the existing page. (No chemdraw structures used. I'm not sure if this is absolutely required either).

References: As of now there are more than 10 references, but some of them are duplicates. Try and work to link them correctly in order to make sure that one reference is linked by the same number. This just makes things clear and more organized. Most references appear to be scientific articles or journals, so maybe try to look for other resources such as textbooks for example, which are accessible to non-science people. This is just to make sure that they can also access some of this information for their understudying, as Wikipedia is a free site that a wide range of people use.

Overall Presentation: I think this was a good topic to work on given that the current page does not quite explain it well and also does not go into any detail. The explanations and examples were very well done too. (Great job guys!) Try to proofread it once again just for grammatical and spelling errors (very minor ones and I've mentioned some in this review also). The strongest point of your write-up is that it is clear and well thought out. It fits the project because it is written such that different kinds of people can still try to make sense of what is happening. I think it's a job well done! Nmaganti (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 2
Content: Right off the bat, I would say that the content is structured quite well. I really like the flow of the entire page, and it definitely has a lot more substance the original Wiki page. I would say, however, that there are a few places that corrections are needed.

The introduction is overall written well. One grammatical change you might want to make is to change the second sentence to start off with "The RISC complex...". It flows a bit better. I thought the introduction was really accessible especially for someone that is not at all familiar with the topic. I liked that there were sufficient number of inter-Wikipedia links to the relevant topics (i.e. the link to the RISC Wiki page). One suggestion I have is to add a Wiki link to the siRNAs, piRNAs, and RNA interference. Those are topics most people are not familiar with, and adding those links to the words might clear up some potential confusion. I would also recommend removing the Wiki link to proteins in the introduction paragraph because I think most people searching for "Argonaute Proteins" would be familiar with proteins in general.

The discovery portion of the page is definitely a welcome addition, and I believe it adds significant value. Perhaps to add to this, you might want to add the dates of some relevant research discoveries. This might serve as a broad introduction to the topics you delve further into as the page progresses.

In regards to the explanation of the Argonaute's biological process, I thought you guys did a great job. The explanation is not only logically thought out, but also builds off of what is explained in the current Wikipedia page. I was intrigued to see that animals and plants have different processes for this protein. If you end up adding more to these paragraphs, you might want to consider making them their own subsections.

The rest of the page definitely adds a lot of specificity and value to the subject. I believe this is the biggest factor that separates your page from the original Wikipedia page - and you guys do a great job!

Figures: The figures were nicely colored and had good explanations. From just a visual perspective, I would have wished they were a bit bigger on the page itself. I understand you can click on the pictures to zoom in, but it would have been nice for them to be a couple sizes larger on the regular page itself. Like Nenita mentioned, the figures do appear to be the same as the original Wiki page, so I would just double check with Professor Walters to make sure that is okay. That being said, the figures still added a lot of value.

References: The 11 references are substantial and clearly show you guys put a lot of thought and effort into your research. One suggestion might be to also use some of the references listed on the original Wikipedia page. I'm sure these will also provide another perspective on the subject. It also may allow you to expand the type of resources you are using. Currently, I see, like Nenita mentioned, a lot of scientific articles or journals. It would be beneficial to expand the source selection to textbooks, newspaper articles, etc.

In regards to citations, I would try and be more liberal in citing your sources. The introduction has no citations that I can see, and even the Discovery section has a few uncited sentences. I would just make sure that this is okay.

Overall Presentation: Overall, I am very impressed with your Wikipedia page. Apart from a few issues in citations, grammar, and figures, your page was definitely a cut above the original Wikipedia page. This draft had great explanations and structured the information very well. Most importantly, it is clear to a person not familiar with the issue. Great job!

Vgudu (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

GSI Comments
Hi DocJML,

Thank you for your addition to this page. Please consider the above comments and make the appropriate changes.

Add a 'the' before Argonaute protein family but take it out before RNA interference. After you have introduced the abbreviation RNAi there is no need to keep using the long form within that section. Use Andrew Fire's full name and link to his page.

The RNAi section is confusing and a bit long. Stick to discussing how Ago is involved and just link to the RNAi page. You also switch back and forth between miRNA and siRNA. If you are going to do this be clear on what you are talking about. Otherwise, you will lose readers who are not experts in the field.

With a few edits I think you will have an excellent page!

Elizabeth

ChemLibrarian
Good work! A couple more suggestions here.

1. An DOI error was in one of the reference there. It was not a complete DOI. You can fix it or delete it since you already have PMID there. Also, you don't need the access date for journal article so just delete it from this reference. You only need access date for dynamic content like access date.

2. Although there is not much content in the original article Argonaute. But you should still consider incorporating what's there, especially the references, into your own writing. Just to respect others' work. Others will respect your work too.

Hope it helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)