User talk:Liucatherinek/sandbox

Shannon Peer Review
Is the article clear?

I think some improvements to clarity could be made. In particular, I think the explanation of what a binding site is could be improved. In the definition it is stated that a binding site is where signaling biomolecules bind, but I don't think this covers the case of a substrate binding to an active site and seems more geared towards biosignaling than catalysis.

'''What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?'''

An image of the 3D structure of a protein with/without a ligand bound, such as with hexokinase in the protein assignment we did, would be instructive.

Grammar

I don't know if this would be classified as an issue of clarity or grammar, but the sentence "Since binding sites are comprised of amino acids, optimal conditions are normally at physiological pH." could be improved. What is meant by optimal conditions for example? And this comes about not just because the protein is made of amino acids but because evolution has made the protein adapted to physiological pH.

Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)?

All the content is relevant to the topic.

What additional content would be useful?

A specific example of a protein, ligand, and the effect of binding would be good.

'''Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection?'''

The organization is generally good, but I think the "Prediction" section sticks out. This could be slotted in somewhere else or expanded because I don't think a single sentence needs its own section. Also maybe rename "Active versus Regulatory Sites" to "Types of binding sites" or something like that.

Which topics are most interesting to expand on?

The prediction section would be good to expand. I'd be interested in knowing how these computational tools work.

'''Wikilinks: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added?'''

All the wikilinks are functional and appropriate. Maybe add links for hormones, neurotransmitters, etc. in " Types of ligands include hormones, neurotransmitters, toxins, inhibitors, and activators."

Are the sources reliable?

Most of the sources are scholarly articles from reputable journals, hence reliable. The included books seem good as well.

'''Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?'''

There are plenty of sources. Citations for the sentences "Conformation changes in proteins can trigger changes in biological activity. Bonds formed at the binding site are transient so that the activated function may be easily regulated" could be added.

Are there additional sources that should be added?

See above. Sources for that would be good and shouldn't be too hard to find.

Does the article rely too heavily on one source?

No, several sources are used.

Is there any close paraphrasing?

The article appears to be in the author's own style.

'''Is it accessible to a non science audience? Too technical?'''

The article is generally accessible. I think some terms could be simplified such as using "geometric" instead of "steric". Or include quick explanations of these specific terms with wikilinks.

'''Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much?'''

See above.

'''Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way'''

The article is neutral and doesn't present any topics where differing opinions come up.

Is the lead section clear, concise, complete?

The lead section is a bit long. I think it should be just one paragraph that hits the highlights and then split the rest of the information off into a body section that gets into further detail.

'''Do the new additions fit with the old content? Should any of the old content be further edited?'''

The whole article seems to be cohesive.

Is the article redundant?

The article doesn't repeat itself.

Is the article balanced?

The article is balanced. It's not about a controversial topic and just seems to state the scientific information.

Slargman (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
'''Is the article clear? '''

The article can use a proof read to get rid of of minor grammatical errors in order to make it a flow very smoothly. Overall, the article can be use some sub-division in the topics such as type of binding sites. The introductory paragraph could be shorten as well as and the information could be distributed under different sub headings make it easier for people to get information about particular topic they might be looking for in the page.

'''What images would be helpful? Can the current images be improved?'''

The image provided are good in the article. Maybe a realtime, such as the image from Pymol, image could enhance the quality of the article as it will help in visualizing how it actually looks like. '''Is all the content relevant to the topic (should some be removed)? '''

The content provided is relevant to the topic. More details in several sub-topic could help the article better. For example, expanding on types of binding sites, what are its application in the industry, and providing some example with specific ligands and enzyme. '''Is it well organized? Does the content flow well? Is content in appropriate subsection? '''

The information is presented in organized way, but do require some subheadings. The Prediction subsection may require an introductory sentence on explaining what does it mean. Also, binding curves can get information about the disassociation constants.

'''Which topics are most interesting to expand on? '''

Types of Binding sites and Binding Curve

'''Wikilinks: are they functional? Are they appropriate? Could more be added? '''

Yes, all the wikilinks are working and there are enough for someone to understand the article.

'''Are the sources reliable? '''

Yes, most of the sources are published articles as well as there are books

'''Are there enough sources? Is everything properly cited?''' Yes, there seems to be more than enough sources as well one can see all the information cited.

Does the article rely too heavily on one source?Is there any close paraphrasing?

Most of the article seems to be the author language and close paraphrasing does not seem to be happening here in the article.

'''Is it accessible to a non science audience? '''

Most of the articles presented are accessible to audience, except some of the books used for the information.

'''Are necessary scientific terms explained enough? Too much? '''

I did not see any scientific term being explained, but they are all linked to wikilinks. The article is written with a simple language with a use of minimal scientific terms. Some of the terms that could be used to explain might include electrostatic, steric shape.

'''Is the article neutral? And are differing opinions presented in a balanced way ''' It is a purely scientific article, so it is written in a neutral tone. There are no opposed opinions that are to be presented in the article.

Should any of the old content be further edited?

The article could be further improved by dividing the introductory section into subheading. Expanding on Biding curves and talking about disassociation constant, and example of hemoglobin. Also, the article could be improved by providing images and expanding on types of binding sites.

Faizanwar08 (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Faizan Anwar