User talk:Ttrip/sandbox

Aya Fattah Molecular Lesion Peer Review 1
Overall, you have strong content and understanding about your topic. The way the page is organized avoids confusion so good job on that. Providing an introduction paragraph to summarize your topic in general before getting into details will avoid confusion of people coming to the page and seeing DNA immediately, thinking that they will learn only about DNA.

For the RNA section, I realize that there is a reference section, it would make more sense to include all of the references at the end of the all the content for organizational purposes.

In general for references, make sure to indicate which reference goes with which sentence/topic you are referring to since it was challenging to follow which references referred to which sentence made.

Under disease effect under enzymes, the first bullet point sentence grammar can be adjusted to avoid confusion in terms of having a semi colon before however and deleting "is" after Schindler’s disease and adding a comma.

I am not sure if you are only using bullet points for the draft or plan to use them also for final draft, but I would suggest paragraph form for the final draft for professional and organizational purposes.

For your diseases effects section, I would suggest since each of your members is probably working on a section of the topic and choosing how many diseases to discuss, to make sure that you comment regarding if there is other diseases you have not listed so the audience realize to look further.

AyaFattah (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

MLibrarian Peer Review
My understanding is that you are going to reuse introduction paragraph from the original article. When you talk about DNA damage or repair, please make sure you hyperlink to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair#Types_of_damage and that the information you provide is contributing to that page and not repeating it. I see many references in text - they shall be added as references. Headings HISTORY do not really talk about history but rather provide a general descriptions, therefore I suggest removing those headings. Same text can be good as introductory paragraph. "May be more prone to oxidation vs. DNA due to its general location in the cell (close to the ETC)" - please spell out ETC when you first use it and hyperlink to the existing Wiki pages. MLibrarian (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Molecular Lesion Peer Review 2
A large amount of information was added to the article, which is great. The first thing that jumps out to me is the references are located in the middle of the article and not at the end, but I'm guessing this just needs to be formatted still. Some of the sections are labelled "History of..." and do not really give a history of that topic, more of a summary.

DNA
The second sentence under "damage", that starts with "one of the most common..." is a little grammatically awkward. Some of this first section on DNA needs to be fleshed out, obviously, like the lists that are not yet filled in.

RNA
I think the RNA section would read better if it was in paragraph form, not just individual points- it reads more like notes than an actual article. The following two sections flow much better.

Enzyme
Under the "Enzyme" section, the first sentence under "Disease Effects" (There are many types...) has some grammatical mistakes. The first two sections, "History of" and "Damage" are both one sentence sections and should probably be either expanded or deleted.

Carbohydrate
The content of the Carbohydrate section is excellent.

Lipid
The content of the Lipid section is excellent. However, it would read more like a standard Wiki article if it was turned into more a paragraph form. Similar to the RNA section, it reads more like notes. Maybe links to the individual diseases would help this section a bit, instead of a general link to lipid storage disorders (not sure if you were planning on adding this, but just thought it might help).

Not trying to be hard on you guys, sorry if I came off that way!! Mbman0869 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Madison Knapp Peer Review
I think overall you have addressed good sections to focus in. Your sources rather than the link can be easily put in (but I understand if you're still editing it might be easier for you to just have the links in order to later assign the order correctly). The article flows in a natural way, and I think addition of a figure where you discuss the purine damage would be helpful for readers who may not know what the nucleotide looks like or the process of hydrolyzation. Expansion on what oxygen-reactive agents in particular cause the damage may be helpful and that way you can link to other pages as well, but the list of what you want to say in that section seems well thought out and comprehensive. Listing all the ways for repair and disease effects is definitely useful, I would just caution the amount of detail you choose to include as I'm assuming some of them may have their own pages for linking but I really found the separation/clarification of DNA vs RNA vs etc very helpful, but there may be a different organizational way to frame this like heading of Repair and then separating it into DNA/RNA/Enzymes etc for each section just for sake of being succinct since it seems some sections like enzymatic lesions are smaller due to lack of information about it available.

Other little notes: when you discuss the etl1 you don't need the specific mutant code. You also need to define CESA and RBC before you use the abbreviation for clarity for the readers who are not familiar with the abbreviations. When discussing the lectin, it would be best to remove "our findings reported here" because it could be construed as conflict of interest and promotion of particular data you yourself did not collect experimentally, instead maybe "data suggests" or something like that. Consider the wording of "to become “apathetic and retarded” I assume this is from the source itself, but retarded is not the correct term to use. When saying "Sphingomyelinase is defective" or any variation of that, I think expansion of that could be useful as it is slightly confusing.

Overall there is a lot of information being presented and minor changes to make about the quantity of information and order of the article to consider. I think you all have done a lot of research and it shows in what you have so far especially considering what the page currently looks like. Well done! Madknapp (talk)Madison Knapp —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Julia Haas Peer Review
Overall it seems like this is going to be a great article!

The sections that you guys have chosen are very informative. I like that each section has the same subsections of History, Damage, Repair, and Disease Effects, just make sure that the formatting and titles of these subsections remain constant in each section for cohesiveness. Additionally, it might be helpful to change ‘History’ to ‘Background’ for all of the sections, as it is called in the Lipids section, for a more apt description.

A few more notes on formatting, make sure to transition from bullet points to a paragraph structure in the final draft. It would be helpful to include links to other wiki articles when introducing new concepts that readers may not be familiar with such as the specific damage mechanisms and diseases listed (this would also eliminate the need to list symptoms of the various diseases mentioned). Make sure to cite sources using the wiki method so that they are easier to follow and so that there are not specific reference sections for each section of the article.

Additionally, it doesn’t look like you guys are planning to edit the original lead paragraph, but I think it would be very helpful to your overall article to make the lead paraph more in depth and use it to introduce the various sections of your article. Finally, I think it would be interesting to add a discussion about whether or not mechanisms of damage within these various macromolecules have been linked to certain diseases, if this is known.

JUHAAS14 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)JUHAAS14

Meredith's comments
I really like how you have outlined all of this. I think it will be easy to go forward and integrate in more details later on, while still reading as an encyclopedia entry. You should include a lead paragraph written at the level of an average reader but comprehensive in covering the most important aspects of the topic. Also, a figure, even a very simple one, would be very helpful along side the lead paragraph. For organization - I would do it grouped by topic, rather than substrate. So instead of DNA, RNA, Enzymes, you could do Damage - with subheads of DNA/RNA/Enz/etc, then Repair - with subheads of DNA/RNA/Enz/etc. I think wikipedia articles are usually organized like that. But I could be wrong. I like how you have systematically broken it down though. I look forward to seeing the final product. Well done! Purchalm (talk) 4:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)