User talk:Hschenks/sandbox

“==Topic Peer Review 1==” Hi Danielle and Hayden, First let me start off by saying that you guys did a great job of expanding and enhancing the details for the topic! For the current content that is on the page I would recommend maybe going into more detail within in each section especially for the leader, rioboswitch and method of regulation if possible. Also Im not sure if Im right about this but I was under the impression that the introduction or as you have as the background you can leave without a title if you want it to serve as your introduction. That way it will add to the top of the page before your content box with the break down as it is on other wikipedia pages just in general. But thats only if you would want that to serve as your introduction, if not feel free to ignore that. Still along the content train of though if each of the headings has a link to another page on wikipedia I would add it to the bottom of the page as your external links to further aid in a external users research just so that all related wikipedia pages are intertwined. For the figures I would recommend maybe using chem draw or pymol/ jmol to create your own visuals if you are unable to find any that are not copyrighted. Other than that the original image that is available on the wikipedia page I think should be retained because its a good overall depiction of the T-box leader. For the references you definitely have enough journals if you are able to find any books to add in information from I think that would allow for more variation. For example from a biochem book for our class or any other of your previous biochemistry/ biology classes. I noticed that you used the same reference for different areas on your page but they are numbered separately, the way to fix that is by naming the reference and then instead of reinserting the entire reference each time you just insert the "name=whatever you named the ref as" in between the cite your sources area. A better example of what i described can be found at this link ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cheatsheet ) and as well as more helpful tips on this one ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing ). Overall though the language and structure is great just a few minor mechanistic edits for the formating and just maybe some addition of information, other than that it looks great! Good job and good luck with the rest of the assignment!

-Linda Lfarhat (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

“==Topic Peer Review 2==” Content

Hi! I think you both did a really good job at providing the main points of the topic and making it easy to understand.

In the “Background” section I noticed that you gave some detail about how certain parts of the T Box leader sequence, such as the acceptor tail and T-box motif, play a role in creating the secondary structure of the tRNA. I think it would be really helpful to point these areas out in the picture depicting the secondary structure so that the reader can get a better idea of how these portions of the T box are significant. Another thing that I think would help improve the clarity of the information that is being presented is by adding external links to some of the topics you discuss. For example, by adding an external link about the meaning of attenuation, I think that the reader will benefit by having a greater understanding of what attenuation is. Although you do add a sentence to elaborate on what attenuation is, it would be helpful to provide the external link just in case more background information was needed. This can also apply to both the riboswitch function as well as the leader structure portions of the wiki page. I really like the section that is titled “Methods of Regulation” because I think that it is important to show practical uses of your topic. However, it would be great to expand on how these methods of regulation are significant in studies and research that scientists have performed. What more can we learn about this topic? What about this topic can help us learn more about transcription and translation?

Figures

If you wanted to add another image, I think that it would also be helpful to see a clear representation of the “Leader Structure”. You discuss things like the stem I distal region and adenine-guanine bulge so by adding an image of these things I think that the reader will be able to gain more insight into what it actually looks like and therefore gain a better understanding of the function. The figure that you do include is original and of high quality, and add to the text. They are also easy to read and aligned.

References

The references look complete and are inclusive of non-journal sources. It seems like you did enough research and have used enough sources to back up the concepts!

Overall Presentation

Overall, I think you guys did an excellent job and presented new information in a very concise and organized way. I think that it would be most helpful just to add more figures for clarification and define some more terms to help non-experts understand better. I’m looking forward to seeing the final product!

-Zeinab Bazzi Zeze bazzi (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Zeze bazzi (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

GSI Comments
Hi Hschenks,

Thank you for your contribution to this page. It looks good so far. Take into account the above comments and I think you will have an excellent page. Well done!

Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemStudent24601 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Good work! Just a few suggestions here.

1. Please fix the duplicate bibliography entry as suggested by the first reviewer. Please let me know if you need help with it.

2. I see that you have fixed the reference issues. There are still the access date error due to problematic format. Actually, I see that most references you have there are journal articles. So, the access date is not necessary. Please just go to the syntax of each citation in the text and delete the access date part, you should be OK. Only if you are citing dynamic content like a webpage, it's necessary to have access date.

3. I agree with the first reviewer that you don't need the title Background for your first paragraph. It can just serve as the lead section without a title.

4. Although there is not much content in the original article T-box leader. 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) 14:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to Peer Reviews
Thanks for all of the feedback on our article so far! We have gone through and considered all of your helpful suggestions. 1. We actually weren't aware that the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia projects are usually presented without a title. Thanks for pointing that out! 2. We tried to incorporate as much relevant information onto our page as possible without stretching too far and adding information that would serve more as a "space filler" and not add much value to the page. We feel that we have covered the most important aspects of our topic. 3. With that said in point number 2, we are adding an additional resource to our page. We need another resource, plus we want to add something that is not from a journal article, since we have a number of journal references already. We also have one book reference, so we are adding a reference to a webpage. Thus, we do need to try and find some valuable information from that source! Because the research is so new and relatively unexplored, it has not been integrated into textbooks yet. This is why we only referenced one textbook, and the rest are journal articles. We attempted to use as diverse of resources as possible. 4. We are fixing our article to have external links, so that readers can be guided to other resources that may aid in their research on the topic at hand. This will help with clarifying definitions, without cluttering/taking up space on our actual page. 5. We needed to fix our reference list, because we referenced the same article using different numbers a few times. We have figured out how to fix this - thanks for helping us with that! 6. In terms of keeping the information that is on the original T-box leader page, we have done so. We have just reworded the information so that it fits better in the context of the new information that we have added. We have also integrated the references from the original page into ours.


 * Note: I think there were issues with our image we made for our page, and it didn't show up for the peer reviewers. We are using the image from the old wiki page, but also made our own. Not sure if anyone was able to see it or review it. It appears we got a copyright violation on our image, even though we hand-drew it on the computer ourselves. So, could we please get some feedback on our original image and this situation in general? Thank you!

Dhmalitz (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC) (Danielle and Hayden) Hschenks (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)