User talk:Leeallens/sandbox

ARE Elements Peer Review 1
The introduction contains really good information on the topic but is concise enough that it is easily readable for non-experts. There are plenty of references to all of the stated facts in the article as well. In the first paragraph when it mentions AREs and its impact on RNA stability, I would have liked a quick sentence on why RNA stability is important so that it ties into later in the page when the disease impacts of AREs are discussed. There is a lot of informative content in the introduction that is good information for the article but I think after the second paragraph it isn't really talking about general information of the ARE elements. It starts going into ARE directed mRNA degradation which could be put into its own section. Mentioning the three different classes of the ARE elements could also be in its own section. When it starts talking about the different proteins that bind to the ARE elements, it starts using a lot of acronyms as examples but does not first give what their actual names are or a link to their own respective wiki page. So a lay person without a background in biochemistry or genetics probably wouldn't understand the whole list of protein examples given (HuA, HuB, HuC, HuD, HuR, AUF1, TTP, BRF1, TIA-1, TIAR, and KSRP). I really liked the figure made by the authors that was used on the page, as combining several pictures illustrating the ARE-mediated decay mechanism into an animated .gif form conveys the information much more easily. Overall, it looks like almost all of the actual information that is needed for this page is already there, with a very complete overview of ARE elements and plenty of references to both journal pages and other sources. However, the information there needs to be broken down into more concise sections instead of the very long introduction with too many specific details in there. Statements that are taken from the research sources out of context also need to have the importance/relevance or the “so what?” of the statement better explained. These include the sentence previously stated on RNA stability as well as the one about insulin’s effect on TTP expression where the sentence alone doesn't say much about what is important about that fact.

Akokoruda (talk) akokoruda

--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