User talk:Srudinru/sandbox

Peer Review 1
Comparing this draft to the article as it stands on Wikipedia, it’s clear you guys have added a ton of information and details, which is awesome! This draft is much more thorough and complete than the original article, and with a bit more editing, will make an excellent addition to the wealth of knowledge on Wikipedia. Below are my suggestions for improving it even further.

Throughout the article, citations should be placed after the period at the end of the sentence they are relevant to, rather than before. I would also suggest adding more links to other Wikipedia articles (for example, RNA, RNA modification, glyosidic bond, etc.). Additionally, the article should be proofread for grammar, especially to include commas when necessary and break up run-on sentences. From here, I’ll break up my critiques in order of the article’s sections so that they’ll be easier to read.

Lead section: I felt that the inclusion of a description of RNA modifications in general in the middle of the lead section was a bit awkward. I would suggest mentioning RNA modifications and linking to the Wikipedia page about them, rather than spending time explaining them there. Additionally, I would suggest including the alternative name “5-ribosyluracil” at the beginning of the lead section when you discuss the abbreviations rather than in the middle. Finally, The lead section includes the phrase “being the most abundant,” – the most abundant what? RNA modification?

tRNA: In the section on tRNA, you include the phrase, “Pseudouridylation of tRNA is not essential for cell viability and is not usually required for aminoacylation.” But, you also state that “Ψ and other modified nucleosides influence the local structure of the anticodon stem-loop (ASL) in a way that seems critical for proper binding of tRNAs to the ribosome.” I’m confused about how these two statements can both be true – is it essential, or not? Is it essential to some parts of the tRNA structure and not others? This should be clarified further.

Pseudouridine Synthase Proteins: This section should be proofread especially carefully. Some parts of this section read more like notes than finished writing. For example, under TruA Pus 1, “Pus 1 is located in nucleus and…” should be “Pus 1 is located in the nucleus and…” Instances of missing article words appear throughout this section. Another example is under RluA, Pus 5 – that subsection begins with a run-on sentence, the main idea of which is unclear.

Techniques in Genome Sequencing for Pseudouridine: This section needs to either link to other Wikipedia pages which explain liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry, or include a brief explanation of the technique, or both – in its current form, it’s not friendly to a non-expert.

Overall, I’m very impressed with the amount of work that has been done and detail that has been added to this article! With some careful proofreading and a bit more editing, I think it will make a great Wikipedia article! Emilystring (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
I think overall the article is well written and well researched in terms of detail and facts. However, I see that there are not enough links for terms and concepts to other Wikipedia articles, which I think are essential for a better understanding of your article and also for it to be easier to find, and overall more connected to other articles in Wikipedia. Another point would be to cite at the end of each sentence where it is needed and not just at the end of the paragraph like is done in almost all the sections. Lastly, I would say that some further proofreading is needed for it to look in between a regular article and a scientific research paper. Specifically in the Protein Synthase section. In general, I think the article is interesting and does have a lot of background explanation, as well as enough source material to back everything up! Arivero01 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
You wrote a really nice article. It was very informative and you did a good job of improving the article from the original form. I thought the organization was really good and helped the flow of the wikipedia article. You had a few good figures and the tone of the article was perfect. There are a few grammatical errors here and there but I think the article was well put together. I have a few recommendations which are provided through out my peer review or in the bulleted list below.

Lead evaluation I think your lead does a very good job of starting the article right. It briefly talks about many of the subjects which are focused on in the article. I do think you touch on a few things which aren't discusses in your article such as structure. I think your lead also might be slightly long. It is a very long paragraph. I also think is goes too much in depth for the lead of a wikipedia article. You could maybe divide it into two paragraphs or take some out of it and add it to the rest of your article.

Content evaluation Overall, I think you did a good job with this article. There are a few areas that I think could be elaborated on such as a structure section or a research section. The sections that you do have are well done and they make a lot of sense. One thing I think would be good if the first time you mention Pseudouridine in each section you use the name not the abbreviation of Psi. I have not read other articles on this so that might be a common thing which researchers do. I also think your article could benefit from a brief topic sentence or paragraph in the section "The effects and modification on different RNA". I think it would help the article flow. I do like that your articles seems up to date. One section which I do wish was added was additional research other then the medical field.

Sources and references evaluation You have a lot of good sources and all of the links I checked worked. My one comment is maybe to find a few more articles which you can base more of your article off of. I know this is difficult since this topic is probably fairly new to you. If you could find additional sources with the same information as article 6 and article 9. Good job finding all the sources and using them well!

Organization evaluation You wrote a really nice article that was very clear. I didn't have too many questions after reading it. The only comment I could think of was making the lead a little bit more easier to follow. I didn't find any really noticeable grammatical errors. I liked the way you organized the article in the various subsections. If I was searching for something about Pseudouridine I think it would be easy to find what I was looking for.

Images and media evaluation

Good job using images in the article. I do wish the pictures were referenced more in the article so I knew why the pictures were important. When I read wikipedia I use the pictures to avoid reading the entire article. Your pictures were very informative but I wasn't exactly sure what they were trying to tell me. Your article would also benefit if the images were labelled with figure #: so they can be easily referenced.

Sawagsta (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review MLibrarian
I like how you expanded the original article. I would suggest spelling out acronyms when they are first introduced in the text, e.g. TRU, RLU, etc. For example, "small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs, pronounced 'snurps')"MLibrarian (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)