User talk:Mkoger/sandbox 1

Reviewer 1:

'''Does the article flow well? Well Organized?''' Yes, the article flows well and is well organized.

'''Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?''' Yes, the level of detail is appropriate. Perhaps more detail regarding the molecular mechanisms behind the physiological effects of cutamesine and/or the therapeutics that use cutamesine in order to achieve these effects can be added, but this is just a suggestion.

Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant? Yes, content is appropriately divided into sections. One suggestion would be to move the sentence that begins with “the nitrogen atoms in the molecule play a central role…” to the beginning of the “affinity” section and solely discuss structural components in the “structure" category.

Does each section stand alone? Yes, each section can stand alone.

Is it neutral? Yes, no bias was detected.

Is everything cited? Yes, everything is cited appropriately.

Are there grammatical errors? No grammatical errors detected.

What images would be useful? Images of cutamesine binding the receptors mentioned or diagrams of the molecular pathways behind its physiological effects will be useful.

All images are explained clearly Yes, the structure of the image present is explained well.

Is it clear? Yes, the article is clear. Some scientific terminology was confusing because I am not familiar with them, but the hyperlinks were helpful.

Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing? All information is relevant.

Scientific inaccuracy I do not detect any scientific inaccuracies.

AYang99 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer 2

'''Does the article flow well? Well Organized?'''

I think the different categories used make sense but there could be better flow from affinity to physiological effects. For example discussing a little more about how cutamesine actually interacts with the sigma 1 receptors or at least a bit more about the role of sigma 1 receptors in the body (for context)

The Affinity section is a little disjointed.

I also thought that alternating between cutamesine and SA4503 was a little confusing.

'''Is the level of detail appropriate? Not too much or too little?'''

Overall the detail in the Structure and Affinity are sufficient (with some clarifications needed), but the Physiological Effects subsections need a little more detail.

Well organized: is content in the appropriate section and not redundant?

The content is in the appropriates sections and are not redundant.

Does each section stand alone?

Ultimately, each section could stand alone.

Is it neutral?

The article is neutral.

Is everything cited?

Everything appears to be cited.

Are there grammatical errors?

Not really but see clarifications.

What images would be useful?

Perhaps an image showing how cutamesine bind to sigma 1 receptors (to better demonstrate what is being said in the last sentence of the Structure section) if possible. Perhaps an image with an example of a “replacement side group” with a lot of “steric bulk and non-polarity” (this might not be very important though as an image).

All images are explained clearly.

If there is any other general information about cutamesine to go under the image, maybe put it.

Is it clear?

I think some clarifications needs to be made.

Is there irrelevant information, or relevant info missing?

I don’t think so.

Scientific inaccuracy

Can’t say.

Clarifications

→Structure

→→Sentence 5 (The nitrogen atoms…lack of affinity) is a bit vague. Cutamesine’s affinity to what? It needs to be clarified if you are talking about its affinity to a sigma 1 receptor or to some other thing.

→→The last two sentences (Sigma receptors are defined…hydrophobic pockets) could be combined and need some clarification. Where are the binding sites? In the active site? I think this needs to be specified even if characterizing cutamesine as an agonist implies that it binds to the active site.

→Affinity

→→No need to mention sigma 2 receptor if you aren’t going to talk about it.

→→When mentioning other proteins or compounds, give a brief description of it, especially if you cannot link it to another Wikipedia article

→→→Example: “… competitive inhibitor for (+)-[3H]pentazocine”, another sigma 1 agonist.

→→What is cholinergic facilitation? —> May also have spelling error in sentence 5 of Affinity.

→→Replacement side groups for what? Replacements for the meta and para methoxy groups?

→→In sentence 6, non-existent may not be the best word choice to describe binding affinity. When I read the sentence, it sounded like the binding affinity of cutamesine fore cholinergic receptors had not been measured rather than that it has very low binding affinity.

→→The last sentence of the Affinity needs to be clarified. Does cutamesine have a higher affinity for EBP than sigma 1 receptors? If so, maybe discuss EBP a little more.

→Memory and Amnesia

→→In first sentence, “introduction of SA 4503” how? What is scopolamine?

→→What is MAPK/ERK pathway? How is that related to memory/amnesia?

NSLIVITSANOS (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)