User talk:Hsse27/sandbox

--Dutcherh (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Peer Review done by : Harley Dutcher

[Read the current Wikipedia site on the topic (if there is one).] There is one called AU-rich element. It seems to have a little bit more general knowledge than yours currently does. The first line is good, maybe say something similar to it, introducing it as something that works with mRNA immediately so we can orient ourselves as to what part of Nucleic Acids we should be thinking about.

[Read at least one review or reference article related to the topic.] I chose to read one of your references, http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/22/7138. This quote from the abstract, "Sequence elements rich in A and U nucleotides or AU-rich elements (AREs) have been known for many years to target mRNAs for rapid degradation" explains well what is at stake, or why your topic matters, so I would recommend paraphrasing this in one of the opening lines. This article emphasizes the need for future work on your topic so maybe explain that towards the end.

Content

§ Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts? It is confusing to jump right into Class I, Class II, and Class III types so maybe start with a broad introductory line like I mentioned above. Then go on to say, "there are three types of these which I will explain below" or something. The language in your current introduction is not accessible for non-experts so maybe go back and think about explaining jargon-y terms a little better, such as the c-fos gene.

§ Do the contents of each section justify its length? Your two bold-headed sections have the appropriate length of content.

§ Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference? I think you could add some links to other Wiki pages, for example, RNA binding protein, protein motifs, homologous. Linking these will make it easy for the reader to brush up the on terms as they read.

§ Are the highlighted examples appropriate? § Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?The content is not duplicative of other content so far as I can see, and it seems to be cited appropriately.

Figures

§ Are the figures original and of high quality? The figure is really nice. It is colorful, and when you click on it, it makes it bigger so you can look at it more closely. Good choice.

§ Are the figures informative and add to the text? Yes the figure greatly adds to the article.

§ Are the Chemdraw structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read? N/a because there are no chemdraw structures.

References

§ Are the references complete (≥ 10)? I would recommend adding a separate References section at the end. Also, you need 4 more to have the complete 5 references. Also, check your link [1] because when I clicked it, it took me back to your page.

'''§ Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources? ''' Not yet. You could look for a textbook on amazon, sometimes those have more accessible language.

Overall Presentation

§ Provide a short summary of the entire content/figures/references, highlighting both what the group did well and well as what still needs to be improved.

While there is some work left to do as far as content, this article will be great. The mechanism of the ARE elements is explained well, but it could use some more general knowledge to make it more accessible to non-experts. Even a brief summary about mRNA degredation could help the reader understand where these elements are working and what part of the process they affect. The best part of this article is the great figure, which shows the overall process in a very succinct way. Maybe you could even reference the figure in the content, explain step by step what is going on in the animation. The reference that is there is a good one, so I would keep it as #1 but look for others, such as textbooks, to help you make the content more accessible. The "disease" area is good because it makes the topic matter. Discussing this a little bit more will help prove the need for future work, which seemed to be a major point of your reference article. Great job!

Dutcherh (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Dutcherh