User talk:Nith117/sandbox

Peer Review by vkapila

Content:

Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

The introductory section is accessible for non-experts, however, I do not see that you made any changes to it as far as I can tell in comparison to the original article. That being said, it did not really need much editing as it was very thorough in it's original form, which may be why you chose to not add or remove anything.

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

I think that the contents of each section and subsection have a length that is able to provide a good amount of information without having too much material to try to decipher. I think that it is beneficial to keep the contents to the imperative details and not add in information as simple fillers. I did like the new additions that you made to the "Telomerase as a potential drug target" section. I think that the addition of the subcategories of Telomere shortening, Immunotherapy, and Targeted Apoptosis are very interesting and the content is relevant to the rest of the article.

Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

It appears that all of the previous important information is adequately linked. It does not seem that there are many linked concepts to the additions you made to the "Telomerase as a potential drug target" section. However, in my experience the link is generally placed in the first mention of a topic, so there may be previous links of some of the concepts that you mention earlier in the article. It may be useful to add links to concepts such as "immunotherapy". I am not certain if pages exist for that already, but this may be something you wish to link to provide a way for a reader to quickly learn about it.

Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

The highlighted examples are appropriate and they place emphasis on what the writers feel is important. This include the three additions to the potential drug target section. These examples are good at bringing attention to various treatments for disease or illnesses that many people are affected by. This may lead to greater interest in this topic for those readers. Additional examples may be helpful for other topics in order the make them clearer to the average reader.

Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

As far as I see, I do not notice any duplicative content of other information on Wikipedia, however, much of this information may be found in other articles but that is because the contents and concepts which are discussed are widely applicable. Therefore, I think that it is relatively hard to avoid what may be some overlap with other articles, but the information should still have differences and not be exactly the same.

Figures:

Are the figures original and of high quality?

I do think that the figures are good, however, I cannot tell if they are original or not. I appreciate the use of color in some of the images as it allows for easier differentiation between what is being shown. It also is nicer to look at than a simple chart, which may appeal aesthetically to other readers. As for high quality, there may be some better options or better tools such as PyMOL which is a free software that you may be able to download through the university and this may or may not be a useful tool for you, but it may be something to look into as it is good for visualizations of molecules. However, you may want to add some additional figures or images of your own if there is a certain example or illustration that you feel that readers can benefit from, perhaps some visualizations of drug therapy.

Are the figures informative and add to the text?

I do think that the images do a good job of reflecting what is said in the text and they provide a visual representation which can make it easier to follow or comprehend. Images are often a valuable tool when trying to convey information or helping to teach others. Very good usage of images so far, although you may want to add a few more if you feel there may be other opportunities to do so.

Are the Chemdraw structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read?

It does not appear that the images are from Chemdraw, and they are all from the previous article. Overall, I like the use of the figures and they complement the information well.

References:

Are the references complete (≥ 10)?

There are a good number of references, with a good variety, and the references are complete according to the directions which say there should be 10 or more. I not sure if you are supposed to add ten of our own in addition to what already exists, so you may want to inquire about that. It does not appear that many additional references were added however. You did a very good job of adding references to many of your supporting points for the information that you added. It does seem that the same reference is used quite a few times though, so look into making that just one reference link.

Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

There are references that are non-journal sources, however they seem to be from the previously existing references. For the references that you added, it seems that they only include journal sources so you may want to look into that.

Overall I think that you have made some improvements from the original article. I think you did a great job finding information about the region that you added to and the information has a good variety. You may want to try to implemented some supporting data into the wikipedia page as well. I also the use of the original diagrams in order to give the reader a good visualization of the important topics. I think that you can add some more of these and they would be very beneficial to the overall article as a whole. Furthermore, you may want to think of some different forms of diagrams/figures such as 3D imagery which can be produced using software such as PyMOL, which is free. The references are good so far, however, just make sure you check the part about non-journal articles in order to avoid losing any unnecessary points. There could be some reordering of ideas in the various sections, as some sentences may fit better in other places. You also want to pay attention to a few typos that exist in the article, such as the heading of the "Immunotherapy" section which currently says "Immuntherapy". The addition of mechanisms can be very helpful and this is also an additional opportunity for more images and figures to be added into the file. Great work as a whole and I look forward to seeing how your final product turns out!

-VKAPILA

Response
thank you for your critique, we definitly understand all your problems and have tried to rectify them in the article. We did a run through to edit all the typing errors and finished adding any pictures. Hopefully it is better now.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkapila (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Great work! I see now that your work focused on Telomerase as a potential drug target section and it reads much more like an encyclopedia article and neutral in tone. Other reviewers will add more reviews in terms of your content. I will focus my suggestions on your style and format here.

1. I see that you have changed most part of the original article. Please be prepared if other editors find it not acceptable for them and revert your changes when you post them to the real article. As you may have noticed, the neutrality of the original section was in dispute. I was trying to look into the Talk page of the original article to see people's comment on the neutrality but didn't see much, have you? I think your addition is more approachable for non-expert, well referenced and rather neutral. But the original contributor may have different feelings when he/she saw the original writings were gone. If you have time, try to revise and incorporate as much original content into your writing as possible before posting it to the real article page.

2. In your reference, I noticed that you have a few reference used for more than one time but listed separately. If you give the reference a RefName when you first cite them, you can reused it later using the NamedReference on the tool bar. That way, it won't show up twice in the list. Please see the slides I posted on CTools site for more info. Please let me know if you need additional help.

3. You did not have many internal links to other Wikipedia articles for terms and jargon in your addition. e.g. biomarker, hTERT ... Please add some internal links as you can.You can do that with the syntax like

4. I noticed some grammatical issues and hope other reviewers would give you more feedback on that. For example, "The tasks at hand now in order to be able to use telomerase inhibition as a drug treatment ..." This sentence needs work.

Hope it helps. Thanks for choosing a section has neutrality issue. You may request the neutrality dispute over this section to be resolved after posting your section. See Dispute resolution for details. Please let me know if you have additional questions. ChemLibrarian (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for all your help. We decided to keep the old material under a new subsection. I think you are right and we don't want to anger anyone with our edits. Hopefully this keeps the community happy.We changed the references to not have any repeats and edited the article to include internal links. We also have read through the article multiple times to check most of our gramatical errors. Our figures are now up as well so hopefully you enjoy our changes. Thanks again!

Topic Peer Review 1 Nancy Nguyen
Telemerase

Content Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

The intro section provides great background information, however it could be better linked to outside sources for further clarification. It seems there isn't much edit to the original page. Also it could briefly summarize the rest of the wiki sections just so the reader can get a clear insight on telemerase function. Otherwise it is still very informative and thorough.

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

The sections for structure, function, clinical implications and all following examples are very well explained. The length is fine for the structure portion, I actually would like to commend you for being concise and having figures and links to outside sources. I felt for aging in the clinical implications section was a little longer than necessary, there were a couple sentences that seemed like filler just to lengthen the section and could be shortened and be made more concise. The section you added, telomerase as a potential drug, is a great section to add, It think it adds a lot to the overall relevance of the article.

§ Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?

I have no qualms about your links. In fact, i think you guys did a great job linking to other wiki pages for further reference. I also appreciate your thoroughness in citing your references throughout the wiki page.

§ Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

The examples you added and decided to highlight are excellent when it came to the drug implications and various treatments. It is clear what you wanted to emphasize about the subject and they are appropriate and well explained in their sections. The only suggestion I would have is to perhaps add figures or even more examples as you see fit, but I believe you did well in this area.

§ Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?

I don't believe there is much duplication here, there are some parts you took from the original wiki article but you did add a lot more in supplement. Looking at other articles I see there are some duplication in terms of subject but they are concepts that are basic to telemerase like the structure and function so there is no avoid duplication there.

Figures § Are the figures original and of high quality?

Like i stated above, I would like to see more figures if possible, it makes for better conceptualization of what you are talking about in each section. However for the images you already have, they are exteremely helpful in visualizing telemerase in the chemdraw image and it's function in the image shown in the structure section. The colors make it easy to distinguish what is what and the captions allow for the reader to understand what is being shown. I don't know exactly, if the images are original, however I don't know if it would be too much of a difference. As long as you find relative images that best portray telemerase and what you want to exemplify, an original image may not be necessary. And as for the quality I would suggest using PyMOL which I believe is accessible and free through the university.

§ Are the figures informative and add to the text?

Yes, I do believe the images are relative to the text and supply good visual representation. As stated above, if you can, try to add some more figures especially in the sections below with the clinical implications.

§ Are the Chemdraw structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read?

I believe the images are taken from the original article, but I do think they complement your information well.

References § Are the references complete (≥ 10)?

with 53 references, you allow quite the variety and show that your information is well sourced. I do think that the 10 additional references should be of your own addition instead of from the original wiki page, but you might need to ask about that. Other than that, there is good reference throughout your information.

§ Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes, they are all working scholarly articles. Some of which are not articles but I checked and they were from the original wiki page so it is not your fault.

Overall Presentation § Provide a short summary of the entire content/figures/references, highlighting both what the group did well and well as what still needs to be improved.

Overall, I think you two did a great job compiling information. Just clean up your sentences to make more concise like in your intro section. Proofread and check for typos, I think I saw a couple here and there. Add figures to make your sections understandable to readers, and continue to link to other background sources if you can, this will allow readers to reference some terms that may be confusing to them.

I like your additions to the telemerase article, especially all of your clinical implications subcategories. They flesh out the wiki page immensely and make it an interesting read. Your examples are relevant to the overall topic and are well sourced.

I think the only thing you should focus on are adding figures and more sources, especially if the 10 sources should be of your own finding. Diagrams, charts, and 3D images would be a great addition in your clinical implications section to help the reader grasp the information you are giving them. Good Job!

Response
Hello, we have done a proof read and hopefully made the article a little more concise. We also added more figures to make the material easier to understand.I couldn't make 3d images with my computer, i just don't have the program. As for using pymol, I didn't think pymol could clearly show the mechanism of the drug treatments, so I chose to use a different program to make the images. I think pymol would be better suited if I was making a figure of telomerase. As for the sources, I believe the assignment said 5 so we have 5 new sources.