User talk:Horrockssam/sandbox

Topic Peer Review Post 1
1) There needs to be a proper references section at the end. Try to search your reference using the cite button. Reference should have a proper title with journal or a usable link. Some of the links in this page did not direct to the referred pages.

2) It would make sense to organize the various limitations into its own heading (Limitations/Problems or something like it) with the delivery problem being a subheading as it seems to be one of the biggest ones. There are certaintly more as the table included indicates.  Having them as subheadings allows them to easily stick out and be noticed.

3) The table works best under the general limitations heading and then each major issue worth its own section can be elaborated under it.

4) The timeline as it stands now lacks cohesion or transitions. Explaining how one thing leads to another or transitioning between these events would dramatically improve this.  We suggest converting this into a history heading and showing what prompted the different works you cite and how the events led up to what we have now.  Subheadings may help but they do not seem necessary here.

5) The main article already gives a summary of the major applications, so it would be redundant to only summarize them. If this is the route you would like your page to take, then its best to focus on potential applications not already covered (genetic disease may be one) or to add details and research for specific examples in the general areas the main page lists.

6) If you intend to have an introduction or opening, expanding on or editing the one offered by the main page is your best bet. It may be prudent to give a general idea of what it is capable of doing and major difficulties of it.

7) Use linking of different concepts to your advantage. Some of the information is already on the main page, but linking other concepts or pages that the main article doesn't already would allow it to be more readable as a whole.

8) How does RNAi compare to other therapies. In the history section, reasons why this method was explored over existing ones may be prudent to add.

9) The wiki page already lists several applications, but is very deficient in the history section and problems/limits with its medicinal use. If you want to talk about its promise for specific applications, try to name specific uses or health problems as the larger article already has the general idea written down.  The history and limits, however, look like they have the most room for expansion.

LuigiAG (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Naveen's Peer Review
The current Wikipedia article focuses a great deal on the cellular mechanisms of RNA interference, with an extremely short subsection on its applications for medicine. Given its therapeutic potential and the interest in the field, it seems like a welcome and important addition to Wikipedia. During the introduction, I think as a non-expert I would benefit from a discussion of what gene knockdown (not knockout) means in terms of expression of a gene or production of protein. Also, it could be worthwhile to expand on the potential of RNAi to target all proteins, unlike drugs which are limited to certain proteins (Gonzalez-Rodriguez, A. and Valverde, A.M. 2015 Curr Pharm Des), and even target ncRNAs, which have been implicated in certain diseases (Poller,W., Tank, J., Skurk, C., and Gast, M. 2013 Circ Res). For what applications is RNAi better or more versatile than pharmaceuticals or current alternatives?

The content throughout the article dives into the topic without repeating what the wiki RNAi or RNAi in cancer pages discuss. More links to current wiki articles would be helpful though, especially for RNAi and siRNA. I like the approach in the difficulties of therapeutics section of first highlighting challenges of delivery and then exploring the current ways people are addressing this issue. I think the discussion of current RNAi based drugs in clinical trials may be too technical if you report on the FDA status of each one. This may simply be a formatting error, but the medical applications portion should be its own bolded section. I am not sure if you already use this, but it may be helpful (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24406620).

The table is a great figure, and I appreciated being able to use it for a summary. I would place it before the immune section. Has the figure been used before for any Wiki article, and did you modify it in any way from the table in the paper? Your group seems to have done a thorough literature review based on the number of references you have, but only two have titled references and only 4 are linked. Also, make sure some of the sources are not journal articles. I would imagine there are news articles on the potential of RNAi in medicine.

Overall, the difficulties in delivery and medical applications sections were very interesting. I think the introduction should focus more broadly on RNAi and why it is promising for medicine. In addition, general formatting and referencing changes should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njasti (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

​Topic​​​Peer​​Review​​2
There has been RNA interference page in wikipedia which is already created. It seems that the page explains how the RNAi can be developed as antibiotic or anti-viruses. Therefore you can found specific limitation for developing antibiotic or anti-viruse related limitation in your talk. What would be the difficulty in developing those treatments. In addition, you can also talk about how researchers are attempting to solve those problems.

There are different dCas9 system developed to activate or inactivate gene transcriptions. In your project you can explain how activating one of the genes will affect target cells or overall for the organism. There are many articles in RNAi assays which can have further explanations regarding their mechanisms. For instance, you can talk about how dCas9 works together with transcriptional factors to activate viral genes to induce apoptosis in viral host cells. I believe that there are interesting articles regarding how researchers target different cells using RNAi which can be further developed in this page.

There are different ideas developed in the page. If you want to go mainly go over the limitation of the RNAi in medicine, you should mention their potential uses first linking to the main article in the RNAi page and argue their limitations. If you want to add the history, you can mention the potential uses and limitation in chronicle.

The table in the page seems to be unnecessary. It would be much more effective to put a timeline of RNAi development. Using the RNAi timeline, people will see a better history of RNAi and where it is going.

Lastly the citation should be edited as it does not direct toward the intended pages. In order to fix this, click on the cite and search for the page. You can also confirm through show preview to see how the citation look like for other people. Fixing these problems will make a great article on RNAi page.

Mjlink (talk)

MLibrarian's Topic Review
RNA interference is a featured article and thus there is limited chance of corrections to stay. But as Wikipedians say "Be Bold!" - so kudos for your decision to tackle this topic!

1. Adding timeline is a good idea but you may consider to create a visual representation of it

2. I would not recommend adding a new subheading "Difficulties in therapeutic application". The current article has comprehensive review about "Safety" and that section ends with a paragraph about delivery. So maybe, instead, you can have last subheading on "Delivery to tissues" and use their paragraph and add what you have suggested "Scientists came out a variety of delivery strategies, including mechanical and chemical approaches. One of the most promising method is nanotechnology, which has been widely used in drug delivery. In this part of wikipedia assignment, we will update the latest progress in this field and highlight its potential challenges." MLibrarian (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Nils' Comments
When expanding an existing Wikipedia article, you automatically face the challenge that you need to be respectful of the work previous contributors have put into it while also expanding it without redundancy. It is also important to use the most recent references; using a timeline is a good idea, but you also will want to add literature articles as new as possible (most of the ones you cite seems to predate the 2010's). Think also about how RNAi applications in medicine relate to new inventions such as CRISPRi, and please use lots of links to other Wikipedia entries.

Gillian's Comments
Based on your entry, I could not understand why RNAi was used in medicine or why it was effective (as mentioned in the pre-existing one). I would try to connect it back to the pre-existing entry on RNAi. I would add another figure related to antiviral therapies, cancer, and/or a timeline graph. Also update what has been found or improved on over the last few years. Be sure to include your references and appropriate links to other topics.