Wikipedia:Peer review/Homologous recombination/archive1

Homologous recombination

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve it to at least good article quality. The biggest problem in this article seems to be its lack of accessibility to people without a strong background in molecular biology. While I would like to keep the article useful and informative to undergraduates in the biological sciences and more advanced readers, I also want it to be interesting to and digestible for high school biology students. Other specific suggestions on how the article could be improved would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Doncram This is really not a review. Extremely quickly, and with apology if this takes your PR request off the urgent-to-respond-to list, but a couple wikilinks from the article are not helpful. The three domains of life links to some "Summary" in which it is not clear what are the 3 domains.  Also the "2007 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine links to an article where the 2008 award is explained prominently, why not just extend the phrase "...won by ____".  Please check all your wikilinks! doncram (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Sasata I can take a look at the article this weekend. I have a "strong background in molecular biology", but I'll pretend not to when I read it :) Sasata (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok here's some thoughts about the first half of the article. I'll add more later. Sasata (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead


 * I think the lead sentence could be extended a bit, or another sentence added directly after that states explicitly that the process involves the physical breaking and rejoining of DNA.
 * Done.


 * "evolutionarily adapt to changing environmental conditions over time"
 * Done.


 * wikilink DNA repair, mitosis
 * Done.


 * "In the pathway that occurs in DNA repair," -> "In the DNA repair pathway..."
 * Done.

Evolutionary origins


 * wikilink prokaryotic, archaea, eukaryotes, conserved region
 * Done.


 * Protein names are capitalized, but gene names need to be lowercase and italicized
 * Because the article doesn't deal with species-specific proteins, but instead more with archaeal, bacterial and eukaryotic genes more generally, is that nomenclature standard? I believe I used the nomenclature used by the corresponding articles, which I can verify tomorrow.  If there is a convention (ideally on WP, but outside would be fine as well), then please let me know. Emw2012 (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the acronym/shorthand HhH, as it isn't used again in the article
 * Done.


 * Figure caption: "Proteins involved in homologous recombination are conserved throughout biology. This diagram shows conserved protein domains in HR-related proteins across all three domains of life: archaea, bacteria and eukarya." Suggest trimming to "Conserved protein domains in homologous recombination-related proteins are conserved across all three domains of life: archaea, bacteria and eukarya."
 * Done, changing "three domains" to " three main groups" to avoid redundancy and possible confusion with protein domains.

In bacteria


 * "...is most advanced for Escherichia coli,[6] due to the organism's standing as a model organism in molecular genetics."
 * Done.


 * wikilink gene expression
 * Done.


 * "Additionally, due to recognition of recombination enzymes of specialized sites within the bacterial chromosome, foreign DNA can be degraded, thus protecting the E. coli cell ." Sentence structure sounds awkward to me.


 * "These enzymes are attracted to double strand breaks, search for sequence similarity between the duplex strands..." How about "Attracted to double strand breaks in DNA, these enzymes search for sequence similarity between the duplex strands..."


 * "These enzymes are attracted to double strand breaks, search for sequence similarity between the duplex strands and catalyze formation of a Holliday junction, branch migration, and resolution." This sentence is a big jumble. Suggest splitting into smaller digestible chunks. Also, the concept of branch migration isn't discussed until a couple of paragraphs from now, so I think this sentence could be confusing to the average reader. The word resolution is used three times in this paragraph, but it isn't explicitly/clearly stated what this means.


 * Chi site needs some explaining, especially since it's a redlink. It's mentioned that RecBCD is assembled at the double strand break, then RecC inactivated or lost, but I don't think the distinction is made quite clear enough (for the newbies, remember) that these proteins assemble and disassemble during the process.


 * "Once this occurs, RecD is inactivated or lost, and the enzyme continues to cut the DNA strand, leaving a 3' tail." Cut in what way? Cutting off both strands? Cutting just one strand? 5' or 3'? Removing one base at a time? A diagram would probably work wonders around here.


 * wikilink nucleoprotein, ssbp
 * Done.


 * "Splice products are crossover products, in which there is reshuffling of genes, while patch resolution yields non-crossover products." Another place where a diagram would be really helpful.


 * "In bacteria, homologous recombination introduces DNA into a bacterium through conjugation, transduction, or transformation." This isolated sentence needs some expansion and clarification.

In eukaryotes


 * "...when the Spo11 protein makes a programmed double-strand break in DNA." Clarify "programmed"

Comment by Emw2012: I've taken care of the lowest-hanging fruit, and will address the remaining issues beginning Thursday. Thank you for the helpful review so far! Emw2012 (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)