User talk:HReynolds2324/Ribosomal RNA/RNAmonroe Peer Review

General Info: I am reviewing the ribosomal RNA article by HReynolds2324, JeffLu98, and Esirls. User:HReynolds2324/sandbox

Lead: The introduction is concise and provides a good definition of rRNA. The first paragraph while true needs some citations, in particular the 80% of cellular RNA and the 60/40 % ribosome composition line. The second paragraph gets to detailed too quickly. I think in the introduction all you need to do is to establish that there are differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes and that the main difference is that eukaryotic ribsomes are bigger/more complex. Then in the later sections provide a more detailed breakdown between the ribosomes. While it is important to emphasize the details it should also be noted that both prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes are very similar in both function and structure. By losing some of the detail in the lead it would be a good way to establish the other major sections of the article. Overall the lead is well written but it gets too detailed.

Content: Structure and Function: Need more citations, especially for any number (i.e. the number of nucleotides). When you are describing the role rRNA plays in translation you mention the A,P,and E sites without defining them. A stands for aminoacyl, P for peptidyl and E for exit. This also makes a good place to link to other wikipedia articles such as to the articles for each of the binding sites. Subunit and ribosomal RNA genes: You did a good job with definitions in this section. The Svedberg units is almost always a point of confusion for people so it nice that you took the time to explain it here.

In Prokaryotes: You either need to define rDNA or link to an article that does. In Eukaryotes: Okay, I see this is where you defined rDNA. I would still link to the article when you first mention it in the prokaryotic section. Define/link "palindromic sequences" Also since you are talking about the structure of the ribosome in this section you could mention the 2009 Nobel Prize which was awarded for solving the structure and function of the ribosome.

Synthesis: In Eukaryotes: I don't really have any comments here. The information seems up to date and is well cited with good links to other articles. Eukaryotic Regulation: Link to the "homeostasis article" In Prokaryotes: Get rid of the "Through research" use "In E. coli" Did all this information really only come from one source?

Prokaryotic Regulation: No comments

Degradation: In Eukaryotes: I would get rid of the "While there is still that is much to be researched into, researchers have grasped a fairly basic understanding of how cells" line. It seems like editorializing.

In Prokaryotes: Get rid of the last line "There is still much research to be done to build onto the current observations and further elucidate the mechanism of rRNA degradation in prokaryotes." You already stated this in the beginning of the section so now it is redundant.

Resilience / Importance No comments on these sections.

Tone and Balance Overall the tone and balance of the article are fine. I didn't feel like the authors were trying to sway my opinion in one way or another. The random links I tried worked and a cursory glance over the citations seems to indicate that they are relevant to the topic and up to date with the current research.

Organization I felt the article was well organized and generally well written.

Images The images were fine. If the authors wanted to add/make an image depicting the life cycle of rRNA that would definitely help readers follow the article.

RNAmonroe (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)