User talk:Sfkuo/sandbox

Wikipedia Project Peer Review:

Content:

Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?

Overall, the introductory section is accessible to non-experts. Everything is clear and it seems to give a strong overview of what you will be talking about. One suggestion is to make a link to the GC Box page on Wikipedia.

Do the contents of each section justify its length?

The contents of each section do seem to justify the length. The explanations are detailed enough to give a clear overview of each sections’ topics. In the consensus sequence, it feels as if the last sentence is leading towards some more detail, but I cannot be sure if it is or not. If not, perhaps re-word this last sentence. The core promoter section appears to be detailed enough, from what I read, it does not appear that anything was left out. I personally found the Binding section slightly confusing as I got lost in the lists of sequences that were placed throughout the paragraph. Also, the sentence “Both these sequences are very similar and confirmed with two different procedures,” what was it that was confirmed with 2 procedures. Was it the preferential sequence? Otherwise, this section is well detailed. The role in plants section still has to be added although it does have the references already planned out.

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

For the most part, yes many of the references are linked to their respective Wiki pages. I would suggest adding links to “nucleotides,” “TATA Box”, “eukaryotes”, and “prokaryotes” in the first paragraph as well as placing the links already in the article at the first mention of the topic.

Are the highlighted examples appropriate?

Yes, the examples highlighted are necessary in explaining the identity of the binding region.

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

The content does not seem to be duplicative of other content already on Wikipedia.

Figures:

Are the figures original and of high quality?

The figure is of high quality and there is a table that appears to support it underneath.

Are the figures informative and add to the text?

To someone that is not doing the research on this topic, the table that goes along with the figure does not provide much because there is no explanation to what it means. The figure supports the text and illustrates the binding region on the DNA. It may help to place a caption underneath the figure and table to explain what it is trying to show.

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

There are no chemdraw structures.

References:

Are the references complete?

No, as of right now, only 7 references are present.

Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?

Yes, there are non-journal sources as well as journal references.

Overall Presentation:

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

The overall presentation of the Wikipedia page appears to be well detailed and is a great expansion of the previously present page. It does a good job of clearly explaining what the purpose of the CCAAT box is in organisms. It would help to elaborate further on the binding section of the page. It explains the purpose of the experiment used and what its findings were, but it does not explain the significance of the sequences bordering the CAAT box. Other than that, their other sections do a great job of explaining their article. Also, elaborating further on the figure and to add the links to the topics that are mentioned above. The references that they have appear to be properly cited, although I am not sure if the date retrieved is necessary in the citation. More citations also need to be acquired as well as completion of the Role in Plants section.

Rcalleja (talk)Rcalleja

GSI Comments
Hi Sfkuo,

Thank you for your addition to this page. Overall it looks good. Please take into account the peer reviews comments above. Additionally, the empty sections are confusing. Will these be filled in? If not it's probably better to delete them. The "Binding" section is also a bit confusing. Maybe take out specific sequences, if possible. Most people reading a Wikipedia article don't care about the sequence, they just want to know what the it does.

Well done! Thank you!

Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemStudent24601 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
Good work! As other reviewers, I would suggest deleting the last section with no content there. If you'd like to keep the references there, you can add them as a separate section titled Further Readings like what this page has Ribonuclease_L.

Thanks for the effort in adding the protein box but I noticed that your figure in the box has been deleted due to lack of copyright statement. If you have got the figure from PDB, you can use it here but you need to acknowledge the image is free of copyright and cite PDB as mentioned by PDB here. Please follow the directions in the video tutorial below to re-upload your image to Wikimedia Commons and link to it. .

In addition, it would be the best if you can fill in other details of the protein box like how it looks like on this page Ribonuclease_L.

Hope it helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. ChemLibrarian (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for all the suggestions! I will definitely work on 1) filling out the rest of the sections that I had planned originally, 2) working on linking more towards other Wikipedia pages, 3) Taking the specific sequences out of the binding section since this may be confusing and 4) Adding more sources and finding more figures relevant to the topic. I realize that this template may not be the best option for this page in particular. Thanks again!

Sfkuo (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)