User talk:Madknapp/CccDNA

Monica Olszewski Peer Review
If the group decides to put in a leading section or keep the one the previous article had, I would suggest being brief about cccDNA. Mention what it is, its importance, and how it's primarily found in HBV.

History/Background section: I feel like this is more of a history/background of HBV rather than about cccDNA. Maybe go into who discovered it and why it was different from other DNA that made people want to study it more. I think a lot of the information you had here about HBV can be moved to the Related Diseases section.

Properties section: I think you have a lot of great information here. Each sentence gives a different aspect about cccDNA. However, it seems like its more of a list of facts and comes out a bit choppy. Maybe rephrase some sentences or add some more information to make the reading flow better.

Viral/Bacterial specificity section: I think this section is very well written and details the mechanisms of cccDNA pretty well.

Biological Functions section: I think the portion about RC DNA should be part of the background section because it plays into the role of how cccDNA is formed. This paragraph is well written, however, I believe you don't necessarily need this section. I would keep all the information in it but it can be divided up and used in the other sections you currently have.

Related Disease section: This section is also well written and I don't have any further comments about it.

Overall, I think this is a pretty good article. However, I feel as though it is more HBV heavy than cccDNA heavy. Other than that, I think the information and structure of the article is great. Adding a few images and/or diagrams of cccDNA could also be helpful. Below I listed some grammatical/phrasing errors that I found:

"In the same way host chromatin, cccDNA transcription is regulated through the control of two enhancers and four distinct promoters."- I think there should be a comma after way instead of chromatin.

"In a recent in vitro study on HBV, the result showed that the half life of the human liver cell (HepG2), is 40 days and provides an estimated lifespan of 58 days."- no comma after HepG2

"The half live in vivo human liver cells has not yet been determined."- Should be life instead of live. Also, usually in vivo is italicized in literature but I'm not sure how that can be done on wiki.

"It is these lack of models that prevent drug treatment, due to the lack of efficiency in eradicating the cccDNA.[8]" Phrasing of this is awkward.

"However there is debate concerning the next steps in the mechanism formation and metabolism of cccDNA, it is known that ligase inhibitors play a crucial role as knockout experiments support." Run-on sentence. Consider rephrasing.

If you start a sentence with cccDNA, I think you should capitalize the first C.

Moniolsz (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

cccDNA Peer Review - Anna Trzcinski
Will the group be using the existing article as a lead section? If so I would consider editing it so a less versed audience would understand better at first read. The existing published article does not highlight the importance of cccDNA or give a clear description of its function in my opinion.

The history/background section written in the sandbox gives a much more clear description of what cccDNA is compared to the existing article. I would consider mentioning that hepatocytes comprise most of the liver's cell mass, as that emphasizes the importance of researching HBV.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sentence "future therapies will need to focus directly on eliminating this factor" seems a little opinionated. Although I completely agree, it may be more factual to say something along the lines of "therapies are being developed which attempt to directly eliminate this factor", and then cite a paper or two which are doing so.

In the "properties of cccDNA" section, there a few occurrences of missing words. There are some grammatical mistakes as well and I would suggest using active voice rather than passive when referring to what cccDNA can do.

It is unclear what is being spoken about when viral/bacterial specificity is introduced. I'm inferring that this section is describing how the HBV virus is specific for hepatocytes. If that's the case, be clear in the first sentence/paragraph. The information in the first paragraph is helpful, but hard to understand without context.

I'd suggest moving the section on biological function to an earlier point in the article. This section contains a lot of great background information, much of which would have been helpful to my understanding of the previous sections.

Both the "related diseases" section and "history/background" section focus almost entirely on the HBV virus. I'd suggest either combining these sections into one or focusing the history and background section more on what cccDNA is & does in general and how it was dicovered/characterized.

It would help to hyperlink unfamiliar words to their own Wikipedia pages if they are not clearly explained in this article (nucleotide analogs, minichromosome, retrotranscription, etc.)

Overall this is a great start! Include some figures, work on the clarity & organization, and it will only get better :) Annatrzcinski (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kateryna Karpoff's Peer Review
Comparing the changes in the lead since the original article, the lead has indeed been adjusted to better reflect the content discussed. I do feel that it emphasizes HBV more than CccDNA, however, and this imbalance was felt shortly after reading the lead. I would alter the introductory sentence a little bit to better reflect what CccDNA is rather than its association with HBV, as this feels more directly related to the article's topic. Additionally, I would include a brief overview of the subsections to be discussed in the lead section. Unless the lead is simply unwritten yet, I believe it does have a notable amount of information not yet present in the article - this should be altered. Otherwise, its length is appropriate.

Looking at the content of the article, my first impression of the "Properties of CccDNA" section was that a lot of the information condensed together felt a little bit jumpy. The sentences can each work well as great starters for larger points, however they can each be expanded on to strengthen their transitions. Otherwise, you cover very important points about CccDNA in a relevant and efficient way. Most of your sources appear up to date, which is also great.

I do not see any issues with any existing biased viewpoints, however I do believe HBV is slightly overrepresented in the draft. While your sources are great and well-cited with existing links, I would include links to existing Wikipedia pages on mentioned topics.

With regards to the organization, I feel the "Properties of CccDNA" section, as aforementioned, can be greatly expanded upon and split up into smaller sections as that paragraph engages great points. I also think a more clear lead section centered on CccDNA more than HBV can enhance its contextualization.

In future edits, adding images of the HBV virus and diagrams of CccDNA with its transcriptional patterns may add a helpful layer to the page.

Overall, I think this layer of edits has brought a lot of life and eye-grabbing points to the existing article. By considering some of the changes on these peer reviews, your article will evolve to be a great future resource for the science world of Wikipedia.

Katkarpoff7 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tina Tripathi's Peer Review
Since the article in the sandbox does not contain a leading section, I'm assuming that the editors are choosing to keep the one in the actual cccDNA article. If they choose to do so, I would suggest introducing the alternative names to cccDNA at the beginning of the paragraph since that is the trend I've seen in Wikipedia articles. Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to explain the second paragraph in more detail in the Viral/ Bacterial Specificity section or get rid of it since I did not see anything about retroviruses in the sandbox article. Since the lead paragraph is meant to introduce what the rest of the article is supposed to contain, I would suggest adding a couple of sentences giving an overview of the sections listed in the article. If possible, I would consider using language that is easier for a general population to understand rather than what is currently in use.

As I was reading the article, I noticed that the History/ Background of cccDNA focuses heavily on HBV, which takes away from the focus of the article. I would suggest focusing more heavily on the role that cccDNA plays in HBV and how it was discovered to be a part of the virus. As it is right now, this section seems to serve more as the background of cccDNA and the history of HBV.

I believe that the Properties of cccDNA section can be expanded upon. The basic points are there, but they need to be explained in more detail. It also seems to me that some of the information in the Biological functions section overlaps with the Properties of cccDNA section-- namely the construction of cccDNA. This section also made me curious as to what other viruses are associated with cccDNA? Throughout the article my impression was that it was only with HBV. Additionally, this section of the article does not seem to flow very well. Perhaps explaining the points already made and adding transition sentences will help.

Overall, the content added to the article is very interesting and the language used would most likely be understood by a non-expert! The biggest critique I have in terms of language is that I found a few grammatical errors throughout the Properties of cccDNA and the Viral/Bacterial Specificity sections. Additionally, I think it would help the reader if certain words were linked to their associated Wikipedia articles (ex. hepatocyte, minichromosome, etc). The sections are organized in a logical order and each one is of equal importance. I believe that all the viewpoints possible on this topic are reflected and the article remains neutral in tone. In the future, I would suggest adding a couple of pictures of cccDNA and potentially what the process of it entering hepatocytes looks like (if there is one).

This is a really nice article so far! I enjoyed reading it and look forward to seeing the final product.

Ttrip (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Tina Tripathi

MLibrarian Peer Review
This is a great expansion of the current article. Good choice! I suggest to definitely hyperlink concepts to existing Wikipedia articles, starting with hepatitis B virus (HBV) - here is an existing Wiki page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B In the section of History for cccDNA, I feel like you give too much emphasis to HBV. How about mentioning who discovered cccDNA and how? Some figures would definitely benefit. How about mentioning how it is different from other circular DNA? See this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_DNA There is big emphasis on HBV in your article. It feels you talk more about HBV than about cccDNA. Please rewrite it. Is cccDNA only associated with HBV or other viruses as well? MLibrarian (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Klea Gjonaj's Peer Review
Like others have expressed, I did not notice a lead for this article and assumed that the editors chose to keep the original one, which I believe to be a good choice. When speaking about the history of cccDNA,I would suggest switching the first two sentences of that paragraph, as it currently seems as though the editors are going to be speaking about HBV rather than cccDNA. I would also suggest maybe rewriting the history section as a whole, as the mention of HBV seems too aggressive and also is slightly misleading. That piece of information would be best suited in its own paragraph than interjected into a section titled "History of cccDNA".

A point of critique would be to include more information in the "Properties of cccDNA" section. I think this section would be more comprehensive if the editors were to do so, specifically to elaborate more on the the interactions cccDNA has with histones. Additionally,I suggest to think about hyper linking some of the "buzzwords" (histone, chromatin,etc) in this paragraph in the future as well. Lastly, I would recommend to possibly combine the paragraphs of "Properties of cccDNA and "Biological Functions of cccDNA" together, or at least putting them near one another, as they share information that would benefit the reader to have a smoother read.

There were no points of bias that I noticed while reading the article, and think that the authors did a nice job in presenting the information in a clear and concise way. All in all, this was a great first draft to read, in its organization, clarity of writing, and also topic choice. Great job! GoblueF2020 (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Meredith's comments
I think you clearly have put a lot of work into this and it is looking pretty good, content wise. I also looked over the other comments and most of what I would comment on was covered. But I do want to emphasize a few things. I think that you need to make the language sound a lot less like you are doing a literature review of the topic, and more like an encyclopedia article. Just present the information in a straightforward manner. I think subheadings would be really beneficial throughout each of your sections. Overall, a very informative read. Good job. Purchalm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)