User talk:Isabelstw/sandbox

Nonsense Mutation Peer Review 1
Content


 * 1) Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

The introductory section could definitely be elaborated upon to ensure that all readers are able to understand the literature. Further elaboration on exactly what a point mutation is might help the reader better understand its relation to nonsense mutations, not just because it was said to be related. They do a great job at differentiating the nonsense from other DNA mutations, however, the addition of information on what a point mutation is will better help the reader. Application of the mutation to diseases is a great way to help non-experts understand the importance and increase interest as they might learn why this is a relevant article.


 * 1) Do the contents of each section justify its length?

Yes, for the majority of the article, the contents do justify its length. However, the content specifically in the Suppressing Nonsense Mutations section could benefit from subsections such as done in Genes & Diseases Associated with Nonsense Mutations and Possible Outcomes… sections. This might help clarify and separate the content in a way that can make the reading more digestible. Another suggestion might be to follow the structure and length of the Pathology Associated with Nonsense Mutations section as it is a perfect length and includes a graphic that only allows for better understanding.


 * 1) Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

For the most part, the editors did a good job linking the important concepts. However, links to words such as chain termination mutations, tRNA, mRNA, translation, transcription, nonfunctional polypeptides, etc. might help significantly clear up any confusion for non-expert readers.


 * 1) Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

Yes, the highlighted examples are strong and appropriate in demonstrating a non-sense mutation. To take this a step forward, the incorporation of images with each example that is included of each of the types of non-sense mutation might better help and be helpful for the reader. However, even in the introduction, the editors do a great job of incorporating several examples to further simplify the subject matter.


 * 1) Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

It has a lot of overlap with the nonsense suppressor and the Suppressing Nonsense Mutation, however, this is highly understandable as the Wikipedia page of the nonsense suppressor should provide more detail on the subject than provided in this paper. However, this is to be fully understood and expected as they are covering the same material. Overall, this Wikipedia article is not duplicative of other content and does a great job of introducing readers to nonsense mutations in detail.

Figures


 * 1) Are the figures original and of high quality?

No new figures were added by this group.

The first two figures included for the example are great in showing a nonsense mutation in high quality and very clear. They are original in composition however, not original in content which is a quality that makes the content more understandable so that the reader can directly understand it.

There is only one other figure included on the page and it was added by the previous author. Additionally, the figure included is not very specific to nonsense mutation and does not relate the diseases highlighted in red back to the Wikipedia page. It is highly recommended that they include figures that can better support their explanations. They could take inspiration from the previous author and do a similar figure however relating it back to the diseases that are mentioned by them in the article. They could also create figures for the types of mutations to clearly demonstrate them.


 * 1) Are the figures informative and added to the text?

No new figures were added by this group.

The first two example figures are great in informing and directly showing the reader an example of the nonsense mutation. However, the second figure does not have any relation back to the disease mentioned in the article. Suggestions are mentioned in question 1 of the figure section.


 * 1) Are the Chemdraw structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read?

There are no Chemdraw structures included. Suggestions are mentioned in question 1 of the figure section.

References


 * 1) Are the references complete (≥ 10)?

The group only added 6 new sources to combine with the original 8 already provided by the previous author. They should include more of both non-journal and journal sources to complete the requirement.

Additionally, they should make sure that all their sources are still accessible. For example, their  "PTC Therapeutics | ataluren". PTC Therapeutics. Retrieved 2017-10-05 is no longer available.


 * 1) Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes, they do include a non-journal source, however, they should definitely include more to add to their sources. That seems to be the only non-journal source included.

Overall Presentation


 * 1) 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.

Overall, the group has a very strong start to fine tuning their Wikipedia page. The edits they have made have only provided a greater understanding and have made the content far more digestible for the reader who might not be familiar with the content. The examples that are introduced throughout the page are pivotal to this. Furthermore, the inclusion of the prevalence of diseases that result and the types of the nonsense mutation have only strengthened their paper. Their overall organization and clarity in structure and explanation make this page user friendly. However, I would highly recommend they review their links, making sure that keywords such as chain termination mutations are linked so readers (apart from getting a general understanding from the page) can explore more about such topics linked to nonsense mutations. Additionally, there should be an introduction of figures, whether they be concerning the diseases discussed or on the types. This will only strengthen their page and allow readers to have a better understanding. Finally, the addition of more sources, specifically non-journal sources, will also diversify the sources available and only allow for greater understanding. Overall, great job!

Isabel Sanchez-Tembleque Wood Isabelstw (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)