User talk:Glwright1/sandbox

Peer Review Suggestions from DrLibraryCat
Thank you for your work on this article, and thank you to the peer reviewers below for their thorough and detailed assessments. I think they have hit all these points, but my major suggestions are: 1. Revise the lead section so that it is written in more accessible language for a general audience. Consider revising later sections to simplify language. 2. Add citations for the first body paragraph. 3. Add section headings and links to other Wiki articles. 4. Fix citations that say "U-M Login" by manually entering the information. Looking forward to reading the finished version!DrLibraryCat (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Quaternary Structure Peer Review 1
At first glance, this Wikipedia page seems somewhat short. I noticed that there are no figures present to help visually guide the reader or supplement the article. In addition, there seems to be no obvious separations between parts of the article itself. It makes it somewhat difficult to navigate, as it looks almost like a single block of text. This could be remedied by having headings which are relevant to the article itself (e.g. DNA Quaternary Structure, RNA Quaternary Structure, etc). In addition, I noticed that you referred to riboswitches as "pseudoquaternary structures." I liked that you mentioned it but if this Wikipedia page is about quaternary structures, it may not be super relevant as it is not exactly a quaternary structure; I'm sure there are many other things about quaternary structures you can write about. Also, I noticed that 3 of your references simply say "U-M Login." You should double check to make sure you have the actual source listed instead of just the UM access page. Saltymedic (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Quaternary Structure Peer Review 2
You guys have a lot of good ideas so far! There are some changes you could make that might help make this page stronger. The introduction to this wiki page could be expanded much further. You don't explain what quaternary structure is till the second section and the intro jumps into information about the quaternary structure right away. I think it would be helpful to type a definition almost like you're talking to someone who knows nothing about biochemistry (something about protein subunits coming together maybe). The last sentence in the intro feels very rushed and like it doesn't belong where it is. It could be helpful to mention other ways that structure impacts function (maybe methylations effects on the structure?) You can also talk more about gene expression and how methylation affects that and other types of DNA modifications. As far as structure/layout of the wiki page goes, I would add section headings so they stand out and it's easier for the reader to read. Images could also be helpful to better explain what is being talked about. You can also link a lot of the words in the wiki page to other wiki pages which would help make it more accessible to the reader. I also noticed that the 8th and 9th citations are above all the others. I think there's a citation button in the sandbox you can use to add those in. For the "DNA" section you could explain RNA interference more in-depth or link another wiki page. I liked the section on riboswitches, I think you did a really good job with that! I'm not sure if this page is just the quaternary structure of DNA and RNA or quaternary structure in general. I tried to find the original page but couldn't find one that was called quaternary structure. If you're planning to add these sections the "Protein Quaternary Structure" wiki page then I think yours covers a lot of info that wasn't talked about in the original. However, if this page is a completely new page I think you can expand a lot of the ideas you have to give more detail and a more thorough explanation. Miranda19983$! (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Quaternary Structure Peer Review 3
After reading what you guys have so far, I feel like I developed a stronger understanding about quaternary structures, because I originally thought that motif was unique to DNA structures. However, there are many ways in which this article can be improved. The first I would like to focus on is presentation. Separating the different topics with proper headings and formatting will make the article much easier to read and feel like other articles on the Wikipedia site. Also, the lack of figures make contextualizing all this new information much more difficult. Addition of figures can help take up space while also effectively communicating more information. The links to the sources listed are dead links that have UMICH login titles. Finally, regarding the formatting, adding hyperlinks to other relevant topics such as the kissing loops and other subjects would make for a more complete article. For the most part, the information provided was succinct and provided a complete picture. After reading I was left questioning why the symmetry of the quaternary structures mattered and what did the differences mean. Also, why was rRNA the best example of quaternary structures? I was left wanting more in terms of content and moving forward this can be accounted for by either hyperlinking to other Wikipedia articles that can describe the terms or by expanding more in the body paragraphs. For future edits, I would consider making some of the paragraphs longer, one way this can be done is by talking more about changes in quaternary structures. If this is going to be added to the existing article, it would be substantial information to supplement the article. Mhawada (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review MLibrarian
Are you trying to improve a section of Quaternary structure in the general article of Biomolecular structure? I have couple of suggestions:
 * 1) try to link already known concepts, e.g. when you mention RNA splicing
 * 2) please remember that for any writing the rule of thumb is to spell out acronyms the first time we introduce them. I am a chemist but not a molecular biologist and I have no idea what is "snRNPs". The right way to introduce this acronym would be: "small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs, pronounced 'snurps')" or linking them to articles that already exist on Wiki. I would recommend you to check all your acronyms.
 * 3) as have been mentioned, check your references. Those numbered 8 and 9 go before 1 and 2 and are not linked anywhere
 * 4) please consider clear headings. It's somewhat confusing now why you bullet tRNA but not DNA. Article needs better organization.
 * 5) I would encourage to introduce a figure to make it easier to visualize.MLibrarian (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)