User talk:Mhawada/sandbox

==Ribose Peer Review 1==

Lead Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, rather the added content reflects the information that was mentioned in the original Lead. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, except for the "Medical Uses" and "Modifications" sections. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead includes information on the history of the name "ribose" and who had first reported about it but this isn't spoken about anywhere else in the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. Lead evaluation: Aside from the two sections of the article not mentioned in the Lead and the history background not being mentioned in the content of the article, I felt satisfied with the information the Lead gave me regarding the importance of the topic. The Lead gives more weight to the structure aspect of ribose, which I think is appropriate since the the structure is talked about most in this article. I do think the last sentence of the Lead is unnecessary to include because it is a bit far out from the topic of "ribose" since it talks about cAMP and cGMP which comes from NTPs which is then related back to ribose.

Content Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing huge, but there seems to be some statements that seem repetitive while making a point explicit. For example, in the Medical Uses section, it is mentioned that "The supply of D-ribose in the mitochondria is directly correlated with ATP production" and then the next phrase states "decreased D-ribose supply reduces the amount of ATP being produced." These essentially make the same point, with the latter being a bit more specific with the "decrease" scenario. On another note, the mentioning of all D-sugars exhibiting the same configuration of D-glyceraldehyde seems out of the blue. As someone who knows the significance of these D-sugar conformations aligning with that of D-glyceraldehyde, it makes sense to include this line, but to someone who doesn't have this background, this bit of information could come off as random. Another example of missing information is in the Structure section where "amplitude of pucker" is not described whereas pseudo-rotation angle is. As the reader, I don't know what the parameters for evaluating the amplitude of a pucker is. Content evaluation: Overall, the content included is good and the added information fits well with what I expected to read from the article. Each section's length was about equal to its importance to the article's subject. Minor instances of repetition in particular areas and needed details in others could be addressed in a later draft, though.

Tone and Balance Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation: Throughout the whole article, I felt that the tone was very neutral and did not incorporate any type of persuasion. There were no conclusions drawn to try to convince me to accept one particular perspective over another. To my knowledge, there are not any significant viewpoints left out. A line that did throw me off was "These substitutions are very notable, because..." in the Modifications section. Considering the rest of the paper did not use words to draw importance to one thing over another, using "very notable" comes off like an opinion.

Sources and References Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In the Functions in Biochemistry section, the information that comes before the PPP diagram have little to no citations. The second paragraph on Medical Uses also has few to no references. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Mainly yes. In the Medical Uses section, there's a line that does not have a citation for further reading; I am not sure if there was no data in the source that supports the claim or if the study was just vague in what it included. This is the line: "Studies suggest that supplementing D-ribose following tissue ischemia (e.g. myocardial ischemia) increases myocardial ATP production, and therefore mitochondrial function." Are the sources current? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Sources and references evaluation: In the sections that your group added, I found there to be fewer citations than in the sections that were from the original version. While I do not doubt that your information is from somewhere credible, I think citing more often, even if it's from the same source, could reassure the reader that what is being said is backed up.

Organization Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? As mentioned in my comments in the "Content" section of this peer review, there are some instances of repetition that could be cut down. Otherwise, the article is easy to read. In the Medical Uses section though, the part of the first sentence where the type of study used for CFS is described as an "open-label non-blinded, non-randomized, and non-crossover subjective study" seems unnecessary to include; it is also a bit difficult to follow along. Another point: PPP is mentioned as an energy-producing pathway in the Medical Uses section, but the Functions in Biochemistry already talks more extensively about PPP. Perhaps including the description of PPP as an energy-producing pathway in the Functions in Biochemistry section would be more logical. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "... chain of RNA the slight difference..." should be "... chain of RNA, the slight difference..." "...of and OH..." should be "...of an OH..." "...to as the "molecular..." should be "...to as "molecular..." "...because it a..." should be "...because it is a..." "...produce similar similar sugars..." should be "...produce similar sugars..." repeat "...angles so therefore" should be "...angles, so therefore..." "...(cAMP) which..." should be "...(cAMP), which..." "...is used a..." should be "...is used as a..." "...drives processed..." should be "drives processes..." "the observed flexibility mentioned above is not observed" is repetitive in wording. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation: Overall there are not many errors that impede reading and the information is presented in a logical order. There are some sections that have more grammatical errors than others, so I would look over that. Also, is "confirmations" supposed to be "conformations" in the Structure section? It occurs multiple times so I was not sure if it was intentional.

Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. Are images well-captioned? The exo/endo images have no captions. All other captions are fine. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I am not a fan of the placing of the image on the RNA hydrolysis mechanism; it distracts my reading as the PPP is also really close to it in view. Images and media evaluation: I think the images included are helpful. I would suggest adding picture of the Fischer Projection ribose as that is mentioned in the very first line of the Lead but I do not have an image to picture what it means exactly.

Overall Impressions Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. What are the strengths of the content added? I think the added information in the Structure section was a big improvement of the original article. Structure impacts function heavily so adding more details on its various conformations and where they are actually seen is helpful for the reader. How can the content added be improved? I believe incorporating more citations where appropriate would be helpful. As I was reading the original draft versus yours, I noticed a decrease in citations used and I started feeling a little skeptical of the new information provided. It gives me a sense of reassurance seeing a citation to know that if there is further information I want to read up on, I know where I can do that. Overall evaluation: The article's edits have made the article more complete, especially in its relevance in biochemistry. I am impressed by how much you added and how the content did not veer off topic because of it. After reading your article, I feel motivated to seek out more information on my topic's applicability in the sciences and not just stick with a description of what it is. I would also like to improve my article with more images because I think that your article was greatly enhanced by the visual aids. Cindycchu (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Cindycchu

I really like the new additions made in the article to make it more comprehensive and clear. Some additions that could be helpful are to include more links to other wiki content, such as many of the terms in the structure section that may be unfamiliar to non-biochemistry audiences. Words like nucleosides and nucleotides, secondary structure, ring strain, steric effects, pentose phosphate pathway (all instances), and more can be linked to improve the article. A possible new image that includes the difference between D and L ribose may be helpful. Additionally, the spacing for the superscripted in-text citation numbers was not always consistent. Sometimes it is before the period, sometimes after, sometimes without a space, and sometimes with. I think keeping this format consistent can help make the text more visually appealing. On the same note, more color in the pictures could also help, for example perhaps using a color code for energy usage vs enzymes vs molecules in the PPP diagram.

````ppoojawiki

==Ribose Peer Review 2==

Lead Content Tone and Balance Sources and References Organization Images and Media Overall Impressions Pragpats (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)pragpats
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead doesn't look like it's been updated but I think it's sufficient for the info covered in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not really
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise and effective in conveying what the article/subject is.
 * Lead evaluation: Overall, I don't think major changes need to be made to the lead. If there are large additions, however, this should be somewhat reflected in the lead so you could potentially add a few sentences to give readers a short preview.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I found
 * Content evaluation: I really liked the content that you guys added to the article. It was relevant and accurate and rounded-out the article as a whole.
 * Is the content added neutral? I thought it was, yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
 * Tone and balance evaluation: I felt that the tone of the additions and the article as a whole were pretty neutral and were more focused on the information being presented.
 * Sources and references evaluation: I think that the citations are a little sparse. If possible, I would go through the additions that have been made and ensure that all statements are backed up by outside resources just to make the article as a whole seem more credible.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?. Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? See Reviewer 1 comments
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes! I think this organization is really effective.
 * If your peer added images or media, does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I am impressed with the additions that have been made to the page. They really allow the dense information to be broken up by visual images that allow for increased and sometimes more efficient understanding. Nice work!
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Personally, I feel that the image titled "RNA Hydrolysis Mechanism" could be moved to the right side of the screen. It breaks up the text and doesn't look very visually appealing.
 * Images and media evaluation: I noticed that the original article has a table on the right side of the screen with more detailed information about Ribose. I would encourage you to preserve this component of the article while making final edits, especially since this table includes the Fischer Projection that is discussed in the lead (helps with understanding to see the picture as well). Overall, however, I really liked the additions that have been made.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The functions in biochem section was a really great addition to this article as it puts ribose in the context of an applicable subject.
 * Overall evaluation: Overall this is really well done! I would also encourage you to include links to other wiki articles, since the more links you can add to your article, the better chance it has to maintain the edits the edits that you’ve made. Otherwise, great job!