Wikipedia:Peer review/SR protein/archive1

SR protein
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, MChapman5 (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From Biosthmors
 * First of all, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia (even though yes I know it is your assignment).
 * One thing I noticed while looking at the lead of the article: "In addition, SR proteins contain a RNA recognition motif (RRM) region. In some cases a protein may lack the RRM domain, but is able to interact with RNA through other means. These proteins are called SR-related proteins." Might this information be condensed into one sentence? Currently, the first sentence logically contradicts the second, so the wording could be improved. I expect to have more suggestions for improvement later. Biosthmors (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP:First sentence currently says "involved in RNA splicing". I think that the world "involved" is general and that the sentence could be improved. How are they involved? Is it worth mentioning their location in a cell? The first sentence should be a good stand-alone definition of the subject. Can we add more detail? Biosthmors (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit removed some unnecessary citations, but it also removed citations I believe are helpful for readers who might check for WP:Text-source integrity. For example, the paragraph that begins with "RNA polymerase II moves from initiation to elongation once pTEFb kinase phosphorylates Ser5 and Ser2" had citations to Zhong and Long. I would have left the citations at the first two sentences, then put one at the end to Zhong to support the last three sentences. The second sentence derives from Long (right?), but now readers don't know which part of the paragraph comes from which of the two sources. Removing unnecessary citations is great, but I don't think sacrificing text-source integrity is desired. Biosthmors (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian's comments
-linked metazoans. -I think the last line of the lead could be put else where.