User talk:Lpmiller19/sandbox

Peer Review suggestion by DrLibraryCat
Thank you for all of your work on this article, and thank you to the peer reviewers below for their thorough attention to detail. My only suggestion is that the lead section should be divided up, with the second paragraph moved to the introduction section after the contents box. In my view, the lead is too detailed, but your opinions may differ. DrLibraryCat (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Kozak Consensus Sequence Peer Review 1
The lead offers a very clear and concise introduction. Nicely done! Consider giving some indication of what areas the article will explore in more depth. Just from the lead, it is hard to infer what sections will follow. The history of how this sequence was discovered seems really interesting. Consider adding a history or methods section below instead of having that in the introduction. I like the mutations section. Have mutations been observed in Kozak-like sequences of non-human organisms as well? The tone is informative, engaging, and neutral. All sources are reliably cited. The article is well written and clearly organized making it easy and interesting to read. The one graphic is helpful to elucidate the sequence. Consider adding more if more images are publicly available. I would love to learn more about this sequence, so perhaps consider going more in depth or perhaps adding a section pertaining to current areas of research. Overall great work! Glwright1 (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Glwright1

Kozak Consensus Sequence Peer Review 2
I think the lead is nicely written! I really like the final sentence where you bring mention that exceptions to the Kozak sequence is found. One question I had after reading the lead is if there's an analogous sequence in prokaryotes? If there is, you could consider tagging the corresponding wiki article (if it exists) somewhere at the end/shortly after the lead. As Gillian said, the tone is informative, engaging, and neutral. All sources are reliably cited. The graphic with the letters is very cool! I wonder if all readers would be understand the significance of differently sized letters initially. Considering adding in the legend that the bigger the letter, the higher the consensus of that nucleotide. Another table to consider adding is alongside the "Kozak-like sequences in various eukaryotes" table, consider adding a table that denotes nucleotide one-letter codes. While A, T, G, and C are straightforward, there are "M"s present that people may not know initially (along with "n"). Having a table with the short codes could help with easier reading. All in all, great article! Benancionikolas (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Benancionikolas

Kozak Consensus Sequence Peer Review 3
Awesome job! Your thoughts are presented in a nice pattern, and it is very easy to follow your explanations because you explained everything so well. In addition, you included specific names of proteins, making your work extremely detailed. The lead is the same as the current Wikipedia page. I was a bit confused when you mentioned “leaky scanning.” It might help to add more description about this. I was also confused when you were speaking about the numbers of the nucleotides. Are all these sites important, or are simply the “-3 and +4” important? In addition, I think you should elaborate more about what a "weak" consensus is and what a "strong consensus" is. Talking more about this may help you incorporate real-life applications to this concept. Also, I would suggest talking more about why this sequence is so important for protein regulation. What implications does this have scientifically and how can this be applied outside of the laboratory? Overall however, this draft is very well-written and informative. Natalieda (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review MLibrarian
Unless you just happened to delete all your text, I fail to see much contribution to the original article. I would suggest adding more than a few sentences in Introduction section.MLibrarian (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)