Talk:Biosynthesis/Archive 1

Article merge

Unless I am incorrect they are the same thing. If I am incorrect I don't see any real difference in their articles, so it should be noted. D-rew 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anabolism is to Biosynthesis as Catabolism is to _________? Anabolism and Catabolism are the balancing states of Metabolism. Biosysnthesis and _________ are the balancing states of _________? GeneMosher 00:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please define your point more clearly.D-rew 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The similarity of the two words catabolism and anabolism is deliberate to help us understand and appreciate the dynamic interaction of the counterbalancing processes that comprise metabolism. If we are to stop talking about anabolism and instead talk about biosynthesis and catabolism, will it then be more difficult to appreciate the counterbalancing subprocesses that are metabolism? I think so. Is it accurate to describe anabolism as a biosynthetic process? If yes, then do so. Go to the article on Anabolism and do that. Then apply a better word for catabolism, and accept the responsibility for explaining to everyone that biosysnthesis and (your better word) are counterbalancing processes, and why they are. Stopping the use of a word that everyone is using is what you are proposing. You should explain why your word is better. And you should explain your better word for catabolism, and for metabolism, for that matter.GeneMosher 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anabolism and catabolism are of specific importance to certain types of athletes, particularly body-builders. It was greatly beneficial for me to find these topics seperate from biosynthesis. I found the information I sought without being forced to skim through a lot of information I wasn't interested in. I recommend keeping anabolism and catabolism as unique topics. Trimix 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anabolism is to Biosynthesis as Catabolism is to carrot? Anabolism and Catabolism are the balancing states of Metabolism. Biosysnthesis and carpet are the balancing states of wardrobe?

don't merge I see no particular point in merging these articles at this point. They seem to cover related, but not similar topics. linas 18:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ctrl-f is overrated

I believe these articles should remain as short stubs providing just the basic explaination of the terms and meanings and refer to the biosynthesis page in a "main article" capacity for integrated understanding. I was just at an article that stated, essentially, that extended sleep deprivation leads to excess catabolism, which required a more precise understanding of catabolism than I possessed, so I linked the word here. Much better link here than linking to a contained section in biosynthesis for what I immediately needed to know. MaxEnt 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing merge tags

Since there is no other opinion in favour of merge and arguments against, despite a four month hiatus, I am removing the merge tags.AshLin 13:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible changes to the article

In the next few weeks, I'd like to make some changes to this article. These will include the restructuring the current introduction and expanding the article to include different sections. I want to add more references, more links, and more images to develop the topic of biosynthesis. Moreover, in terms of content, I primarily want to include the biosynthesis of lipids, polysaccharides, proteins, and DNA. These sections will include the biosynthesis pathway and organelles involved in each respective process. Aconch (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the introduction and added two additional sources. One source that was previously listed, Wile, Dr. Jay L. and Durnell, Marilyn F. (2005). Exploring Creation with Biology 2nd Edition. Indiana: Apologia Science, was removed. Aconch (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new headline to the article to reflect key components in the lipid membrane. I hope to add more to this section, detailing how these components are synthesized. Aconch (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the lipid membrane section, incorporating how each major component is synthesized Aconch (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new section on DNA synthesis Aconch (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also generalized/simplified the introduction. It no longer has citations; detailed sentences that required citations were moved to the body of the article.Aconch (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Ideas

Obviously the first place to start improvement is from the Lead section. The lead section should clearly define the article topic, establish the context, and establish notability of topic. I agree with Aconch that about what contents should be included in article. I think there should be additional sections that talk about biosynthesis of other amino acids, cofactors and vitamins. The article mentions cellular organelles that are cites of biosynthesis. I think this should also be elaborated in the body section of the article. Galemu2 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Neelix

Hi all,

You've done a good job with this article thus far. Here are some recommendations for further improvement:

Section headings should not be duplicated; if "Biosynthesis of Lipids" and "Major Lipid Membrane Components" both apply to the entire section, then only the more general section heading should be used.
Synonyms of the title of the article should be bolded, not italicized or put in quotation marks.
Bolding should only be used for the title of the article and its synonyms in the first sentence of the lead; entries in a list should not be bolded.
The final paragraph of the article is too long and is missing important wikilinks.
The lead should summarize the contents of the body of the article; anything that appears in the lead should also appear in the body, and only the statements in the body should be followed by citations (except in the case of direct quotations).
Be careful with comma usage; avoid using commas where they are not needed, and make sure that sentences are not strung together with commas to create run-on sentences.
There is no need to repeat the title of the article in the section headings.

You're producing a great article. I hope the above suggestions help. Neelix (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neelix,

Thank you very much for your feedback. My partner and I will work on incorporating your recommendations into the article. Hopefully, we'll be able to perform all of the changes by next week. Thus far, I've corrected the following items:

The synonyms of the title of the article have been bolded.
Bolding elsewhere in the article was removed.
Removed any repeats of the title of article in section headings.

Thanks again for your help! Aconch (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neelix,

I just wanted to let you know that I've made an additional improvement to the article. The lipid section's heading and subheadings are no longer repetitive. Thanks! Aconch (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also generalized/simplified the introduction. It no longer has citations; detailed sentences that required citations were moved to the body of the article.Aconch (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neelix. Thanks for taking time out to review the edits. I hope i've made better improvements this time around. I've tried to address the the issues you have pointed out. I've addressed the wikilink issue, reduced comma usage and modified the length of the second paragraph of the Purine nucleotide section. Thanks. Galemu2 (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

You've been making some great improvements to the article thus far. Here are some additional recommendations:

Article sections should generally be called things that would be appropriate titles for individual articles, because any section should be able to be split off as its own article if it grows sufficiently long. Consider what the "Basics" section is really about as distinct from the other sections, and call it that (perhaps "Chemical properties"?). Alternatively, if this section is a summary of the rest of the article, the information it contains should be dispersed through the relevant sections and/or added to the lead, which is supposed to serve that purpose.
The capitalization of section headings should be consistent with body text. For example, "See Also" should read "See also".
There are some grammatical errors to pick out, such as "A summary table of the key players in translation are found below," which should read "is".
No external links should appear in-text; they should be formatted to appear in the "References" section if they are sources, or they should be replaced by wikilinks if they serve to define a term.
Be careful not to squash text between images; paragraphical text should be free to reach at least one side of the screen, rather than being blocked off by images on both sides.

I'm impressed with the work you've been doing. I hope you are enjoying the experience enough to stick around once your course ends. Neelix (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neelix. Thanks again for taking the time to review this article. I've made the grammatical corrections you have suggested. I've tried to fit the images so that the text could reach at leas one side of the screen. I have also removed the external links that appeared in-text, and added them as reference. However, I have left some of the terms without wikilinks because I was not able to find wikipedia articles that talk about these enzymes and molecules. What is recommended in this situation? Galemu2 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neelix, Thanks for your feedback. The following additional changes have been made:

"The basics" section was renamed.
Headings with more than one word only have the first word capitalized
A couple of images were removed to ensure that at least one side of the text is touching the screen. Thanks. Aconch (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WillPugarth

I can see that you guys have already added a great deal of information, and I am guessing you will be adding quite a bit more (I am guessing that an additional section for each major process is in the works!). Honestly, I would be overwhelmed if I was working on an article with so much breadth, since biosynthesis is such an extensive topic!

My first suggestion relates to your introductory paragraph. It seems really long and content heavy. Granted, I assume that your remaining sections will be extensive as well, so I imagine that such a large introduction will match the rest of the article. Either way, it might be a bit overwhelming for a person who is looking to quickly skim the first paragraph for information.
Secondly, it might be nice to have some content related to how Lipid components assemble and the types of processes used to build fatty acids for use in membranes.
Based on what has been added so far, obviously a section on proteins is a likely choice, along with imagery relating to protein structures could be included.
In the paragraph about Nucleotides, Wiki-linking might be suggestible, as the content might be difficult for the average non-science backgrounded person. Then they can cross check definitions/information about the given terms.
Additionally, in the paragraph about Nucleotides, additional sources might be nice, as well as a breakdown of the paragraph into more digestible sections.

Otherwise, I think your article and content are going to be really impressive, as you have already added so much detailed information. Good luck and happy editing!--WillPugarth (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WillPugarth!

I’d like to thank you for your great feedback and wish to address your suggestions.

I agree that the introduction is quite extensive at the moment. ~~I’d like to condense/simplify the introduction, and will do so once I definitively know what sections this article will include. This change will be made by December 14, 2013.~~ Update: I've generalized/simplified the introduction. It no longer has citations; detailed sentences that required citations were moved to the body of the article. Aconch (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the lipids section to include the synthesis of the major lipid membrane components.

My partner for this project, Galemu2, will address your two remaining points on the nucleotide synthesis. Thanks again for your help; I really appreciate it! Aconch (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WillPugarth. Thanks for taking time to review our edits. We have tried to address some of your recommended edits. For the nucleotide section, I've added the wiki links. Furthermore, I've also modified the second paragraph as a list, to make it more manageable to digest.Galemu2 (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I just saw that your lipids section is way better! The addition of graphics has definitely improved the appearance of the article, as well as cleared up the role of synthesis with membrane lipids. I really like the explanations given as well, since they complement the images so well (and vice versa).

The Nucleotide biosynthesis section is also immensely improved. I like the way you added steps as indented points to clarify what is happening. I also noticed the plethora of Wikilinks you two have added, and I have to say they are really helping when it comes to being able to cross-check information.

In any case, I think your article is fantastic so far!--WillPugarth (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! It's nice to see that your article is looking really great! I noticed you revised the intro section and have added an immense number of wiki-links. If you guys don't mind, I might go through and tinker a little bit by adding any wiki-links that are missing. Also, I noticed that there was some amount of reduplicated citations. I might come through and replace some of them for you if you don't mind. Either way, good luck on your continuing efforts!--WillPugarth (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will Purgarth! Thanks so much for checking up on us. Please feel free to make any of the edits that you mentioned; they are greatly appreciated!!! Aconch (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody! I made some of the changes I mentioned, but did not go too wild with them. I really like your Cholesterol synthesis diagram as well as the DNA one! You seem to have cleaned up your article quite a bit as far as linking goes. Otherwise, I think your article is doing really great!--WillPugarth (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, we really appreciate all of your help! Aconch (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Godwin Ifere

This is a nicely written article, except for a few observations that might make it better.The observations are as follows:

Lead section:

I would suggest that your statement, "substrates are converted to more complex products" seems to narrow the range or boundaries of biosynthesis. Some biosynthesized molecules are not necessarily macromolecules. Even monomers e.g. amino acids, nucleotides are products of biosynthesis. Thus you may consider defining the boundaries of your definition to include, biosynthesis of simple molecules and macromolecules. Otherwise, you may exclude the biosynthesis of simple molecules. It would think that the difficult to understand terminologies such as monomers should be introduced gradually to a lay audience. I thought, some of the statements, such as "In biosynthesis, monomers" ----etc need appropriate citation.

Content:

There is no link between the subheading "Lipids and Purines Nucleotides" in the content section and the lead section. I would think that you give a hint of the subjects or articles in the content in the lead section. Again, the discussion on lipids does not explain how it relates to biosynthesis.Also, I would think that there is much said on purine nucleotide biosynthesis than required to explain its role in biosynthesis.I am confident that this will make a great article. Goodluck. Godwin Ifere 00:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenwatata (talk • contribs)

Hello Godwin,

Thank you for your feedback. The following changes have been made to the article:

The first “monomer” has been wikilinked so that someone that is unfamiliar with the term may access its definition.
I modified a sentence to reflect that biosynthesis includes the formation of simple compounds as well as macromolecules.
The “In biosynthesis, monomers…” sentence was given a reference.
The lipids section has been completed to reflect how major membrane lipids are biosynthesized.
I agree that the progression of the lead section and the content of the article are not matching. I hope to rectify this once my project partner and I finish the body of the article, at which point, we will modify the introduction. This will be done by December 14, 2013.

Lastly, Galemu2 will address your point regarding nucleotide synthesis. Thanks for your help! Aconch (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Godwin, hope all is well. Thanks for taking time out to review the article. This week we have made more edits to article. We have modified the lead section and edited the body of article. We have also added more material and images to article. We hope this edits has improved the article from its previous state. We appreciate your recommendation. Galemu2 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aconch and Galemu2, I am doing fine. I found out that you have put in a lot of effort to upgrade your article and address some of the issues I raised earlier on. The article now looks very interesting and as you indicated, I am confident that you'll bring it up to standard as time goes on. However, I would request that you look again especially at the introduction to fill in some the required citations.Take care as we continue to partner on seeing you come out with the right article. Godwin Ifere 05:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenwatata (talk • contribs)

Hi Godwin,

I just wanted to make a quick note regarding the introduction section. As of right now, I'm waiting to modify the lead section because I'm not sure how much information we'll ultimately be able to incorporate in the body. Once we have the bulk of our article finalized, we'll go back and make the introduction's modifications. I did want to note though that based on our OA's feedback, we'll actually have to phase out citations from the introduction. It appears that unless it's a direct quote, no citations should be in the introduction, as that is supposed to be a general "synopsis" for the details that will be cited later in the body. Aconch (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Update: I've generalized/simplified the introduction. It no longer has citations; detailed sentences that required citations were moved to the body of the article. Aconch (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Aconch, I have just gone through your write up, and I found out that you have done a tremendous amount of work on it. I have seen that the introduction to the article now summarizes the ideas of the article and provides a lead on the follow-up issues. Following your addition and edits to the article, I would now agree with you that, what I earlier read was a skeletal framework of the main article. I have taken note of your explanation regarding the fact that the citations in the introduction ought to be removed. I am studying other standard Wiki articles as a guide to what should be. I am equally pleased with the coverage of your discussion of biosynthesis. I would believe that because biosynthesis is an open ended topic, and since it encompasses every biological reaction, your decision to cover the biosynthesis of the major biomolecules is just the right approach. As, you continue to develop the article, I am looking forward to its being a major addition to the topics covered in Wikipedia. I am wishing you all best of luck. Regards. Godwin Ifere 03:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Godwin, thank you very much for your kind words and input. Please feel free to stop by at any time to give us additional suggestions. Aconch (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aconch and members of the group, I just stopped by to make a final review about the progress of the article. The article has been carried to greater heights than I envisaged, and I very proud of my editorial association with its write-up. The graphics especially on the movement of DNA polymerase along the template DNA strand was fantastic. Keep up with the good work. I hope to visit the article way beyond the class. Regards to the team. Godwin Ifere 04:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenwatata (talk • contribs)

Comments from Jim892

Hello Aconch and Galemu2! I will be posting my comments in multiple sub-sections under this heading and will be working on it a piece at a time over then next several days. I thought that breaking the comments into smaller sections might make it easier for us to dialog on the separate topics. Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Impression

WOW! You folks are doing a great job! The "first impression" is lovely. It is inviting and colorful with all the illustrations and I really like the layout with images on both left and right and the text flowing around them. Super! The category of "first impression" isn't on the official Wikipedia "style guideline", but I think it is very important. I wanted to read your article just based on the attractive layout and illustrations. I did notice that the text was continuing to wrap around at the beginning of the major section on Nucleotides. It needed the special {{-}} template to "break and clear floating elements" just above the ==Nucleotides== section marker, so I took the liberty of adding that. Hope you don't mind. You already had it in place in front of the DNA section. I also decided to "be bold" and removed that ugly "reference-improve" block from 2009 that was at the beginning of your article. This article has been improved so much that it is time for that item to go! And, it was hurting the "first impression" just a bit. :-) -- Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim892. Thanks for taking the time out to review the article. Me and my partner are working to improve this article. Any edit you believe would improve the article is welcome. We are all working for the same goal. Make the best Wikipedia article. Galemu2 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, Thank you so much for your encouraging words; they are greatly appreciated :). As Galemu2, pointed out, we welcome any and all edits/suggestions. Thank you in advance for your help! Aconch (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I just wanted to let you know (so that you'd have a better idea of how the article will ultimately be structured), after addressing the synthesis of various macromolecules, we plan to end the article with a section that mentions some of the problems that may occur in the aforementioned macromolecules' biosynthesis. Additionally, we will also note the effects that arise from these problems. Thanks! Aconch (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aconch, The plans you mention above sound great. I think you are going to end up with a really great article on biosynthesis. I'm looking forward to the end result! --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content

I really like your article and have some ideas on how to make it even better. The intro is quite good and as I read through the second paragraph, I feel really excited and prepared for a discussion on the "Basics of Biosynthesis". However, the items right after the intro are the examples - actually they are outstanding, detailed examples - but I'm thinking there needs to be a "tutorial" section first. The "contents" box shows the issue I think. If I put "Biosynthesis" over the top of the contents box, the outline doesn't look quite complete. For me, there should be a major section, just above "Membrane lipids" called something like "The Basics" or maybe "Understanding Biosynthesis". In that section you could show generic diagrams with the things you describe as the "prerequisite elements" in the lead section. The diagrams might be similar to the ones under "Phospholipids" but greatly simplified so that a non-scientist (perhaps even a middle-school student) could understand without having to deal with the scientific jargon. Actually, if you could target this section at the middle-school student, it would be perfect.

The rest of the content is excellent. Well written with good flow and a very nice level of detail. --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-links, Layout and References

Your article is really well done in these categories. Wiki-links are well done so I searched-and-searched and found just a couple of opportunities for wiki-links in the Sphingolipids section (eukaryotic cells, central nervous system, ceramides) and in the Cholesterol section (lipid, hydroxyl group, steroid hormones, cortisol, testosterone, estrogen).

In the cholesterol section you list 3 stages. I'm wondering if these should be indented like the lists under Purine and Pyrimidine. I'm not sure if it needs it, but wanted to point it out. It might be distracting to indent since the text is wrapping nicely between the illustrations.

References look good. I like the two-column listing and I'm going to try that on my article! -- Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

All the illustrations are very nice. I did notice that the Phosphatidic acid synthesis image has some problems with the text within the image overlaying on itself (due to reducing the image from its original size). I tried making a copy of the file in "gif" format and posting that to Wikimedia Commons to see if it would look better. It is different but maybe not better (fuzzy instead of overlaid). Here is the comparison:

NEW:

OLD:

Feel free to use the new version if you like. File name is: Phosphatidic acid synthesis gif 2980x900.gif and you should use 600x181px (vs. 600x195px). I'm pretty sure that I could make the text look much better with a little work in my graphics package. Let me know if you'd like me to take a shot at that.

That's it for my review. Best of luck with the article. It is looking really good! --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to illustration section: Thanks so much for your feedback and the new image, Jim! I've already updated the image and will work on implementing your suggestions this week. Aconch (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that the image worked out. Please let me know if you run into similar problems with future images as you add content over the next couple of weeks. It was a very easy fix once I figured out what to do. --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to wikilink section: Thank you for the suggested wikilinks; I've incorporated these into the article. Aconch (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks now look fabulous! :-) --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim! Aconch (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to content section: Hi, Jim! I've incorporated a new paragraph discussing the basics of biosynthesis. Thanks for the idea! I believe that this last update finishes incorporating all of your suggestions. Thanks again for your help. Aconch (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim and Cindy. Great idea on the "The Basics" section. I agree that it adds to the article. Biosynthesis is broad topic, and adding this section makes further reading more inviting. Galemu2 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pozmi

Hello Group 84E! I noticed your article had a user feedback section. Although currently disabled, it provides some helpful comments on the article in the past. It also seems like the original article needed much improvement to be more helpful to users. Seeing the changes you've made, I'm sure that if the feedback section were enabled today, the comments would be much more positive!

What I first noticed about this article are the abundant images and wikilinks. I feel that this is a particularly complex subject that requires diverse base knowledge of biology and chemistry concepts. On top of that, it is also a broad subject, but is best explained with specific examples. And, since it is a subject relevant to many areas of study, this page is going to be getting a lot of hits with many different kinds of readers. With all this in mind, here are a few comments:

Content Coverage: I made a couple of grammar edits (changing a comma's placement, adding a hyphen). Overall, the content is comprehensible, unambiguous, and unbiased. The article tone is advanced, but not convoluted.

Writing Organization: Great work with your structuring. From starting with a stub that contained only an introduction, you have fleshed out a number of sections. Good move by using macromolecule type as the main method of organization.

Wikilinking: Sometimes, the same term is wikilinked multiple times, for example "nucleotide". I would suggest wikilinking a term only at its first use. But, if you feel it would be more appropriate to wikilink it elsewhere, then perhaps limit wikilinking the term to once per section. For example, nucleotide is linked twice in the introduction, twice in the Nucelotide section, and twice in one paragraph of the DNA section. I feel that it's important to keep the many diverse links you have, but cutting down on the multiples can help improve readability. The style guide has some helpful tips on linking.

Illustrations: The images seem relevant to the written content. However, a few of the diagrams are a bit dense when not in full view, though it is understandable you can't have every image at full size. I am not sure if you have more figures that you wanted to add to the article, but if you did, then you may consider an image gallery section containing various biosynthetic reactions, sorted by type. Of course, from the content available on Wikipedia Commons that may be a project all on its own!

Referencing: Although the article itself is well-cited, some of the references are used very often. These references are mostly textbooks, so it's understandable that they would cover much of the subject but adding more references would give users more sources to continue on to after reading the article. Alternatively, you could just create a "See Also" section that has valuable resources for the reader, even if they are not necessarily cited within the article.

Great work so far. Looking forward to the rest of the article! -- Pinar --Pozmi (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article, Pinar. I'll work on incorporating your suggestions into the article! Aconch (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinar, thank you for your suggestion about the wikilinking. I've removed the nucleotide links that you mentioned and went through the rest of the article to make sure that a given wikilink does not appear more than once per subheading. Aconch (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to add a follow-up update. I have found additional references and replaced some of my current references so that a single reference is not cited more than 5 times (5 sentences or roughly a paragraph). Thanks! Aconch (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pinar. I made a couple of changes. As you noted, incorporating an image gallery might not be possible due to time constraints; however, if a person is interested in the image, it's possible to click on the the picture in order to get a "full size view." Additionally, I resized some images, which might help as well. The cholesterol pathway image in particular is now part of the body of the text, instead of a supporting image at the side. Secondly, I also added a "See Also" section where individuals can get more detailed information regarding the specific macromolecules. With these last couple of changes, I believe that I have incorporated all of your suggestions. Thank you for helping improve the article. Aconch (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pinar. Thanks for a thorough review of the article. As you have noticed Cindy has managed to fix the images. Also, some of the images were bigger than the page size and needed be resized to fit the page. Additionally, you mentioned that there were multiple wikilinks in the article, and that it affects readability. I looked at the Manual of style for guidelines on linking, and they recommend one wiki link per article. However, i feel like there should be one wikilink per section. I think this would allow readers to stay within the section to find definition of key terms. Thank you for the idea.Galemu2 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Group 84E, I'm glad my suggestions could be of help! With the multiple wikilinks reduced, I agree that in the case of biosynthesis, having so many terms, that some links need not be restricted to once per article but once per section. This, along with the "See Also" section you included, gives the reader plenty of options to expand on the topic. As well, all your current images look very clear, and the article is kept visually interesting by alternating the images between the left, right, and center. It already looks like a polished article and I look forward to the end result! Pinar --Pozmi (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Pinar! Let us know if you have any further suggestions! Aconch (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Updates

I moved the figures in the cholesterol section back; I think the section looks a little cleaner that way. I'm also going to try to tweak some of the images in the nucleotide section, so that we don't have so much dead space at the bottom. Thanks! Aconch (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "muliple images" box to the nucleotide section. This should resolve the dead space issue. Aconch (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "the Basics" section

I understand it is necessary to include a section that introduces some key concepts of biosynthesis. "The Basics" section does talk about some of the important concepts. I think this section should be renamed and talk about Enzymes catalysis and naming. This way the section would include the necessary introductory concepts for biosynthesis. Furthermore, it would also become a stand alone section.Galemu2 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galemu2. I really like the new section that is now called "Chemical properties". It serves the goal of introducing important concepts. The math equations with the enlarged text look really great and add a lot to the article. Keep up the good work! --Jim Perry (Jim892) (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your feedback, Jim. You've been extremely helpful in the editing process. Like Jim, I believe that the "Chemical properties" section served to introduce basic biosynthesis concepts that could not be incorporated into the "body" paragraphs of the article, but were not general enough to be included in the introduction. Additionally, the information presented is distinct enough from the other parts of the article to warrant its own section. Having said that, time permitting, I absolutely welcome any additional enzyme information in this section. On a somewhat related note, for the final contribution next week, I'll be working on a section that highlights some of the consequences that occur when the biosynthesis events that we discussed go awry. Aconch (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Apoptosis81

Hi Group 84E, your article is very impressive! You have covered an extremely wide range of topics relating to biosynthesis in great detail. I think your content is exceptional with great wikilinking throughout and I do not really see anything major that I would think to add or change at this point. I have a few suggestions on some items for potential improving, but feel free to ignore any of these. My suggestions are the following:

Based on previous reviews it sounds like the "Chemical properties" section is fairly new. I wonder if it might be better to incorporate "Chemical reactions" into the title of this section since the majority of the content relates to reactions. For example: Properties of chemical reactions.
You have many great images in the article, but at times it almost seems like there may be too many for the article. Some are rather large and somewhat break the flow of the article, but a few examples that I may tweak are:
- The Cholesterol pathway image is rather large and appears to be middle aligned. It may be better to make this image left or right aligned instead so that it does not create such a large gap in the text.
- The Nucleotide Synthesis image looks somewhat out of place at the end of the Nucleotide section. Potentially this could be moved near the top of this section as it is an image of what this section is about overall. Potentially one of the 3 images could be removed from this section as it looks a bit crowded.
- The Table of Codons for the amino acids also seems a bit out of place and may be superfluous information for the focus of this article.
The Nucleotide, DNA and Proteins sections go into great detail about the biosynthesis of these molecules, but the Amino Acid section only touches on amino acid synthesis briefly. I'm wondering if more content is planned for this section?
After reading through the article a few times, one thing that stuck out to me is the style of the article changes quite a bit from section to section. In particular the way lists or steps are handled changes from bullets, to numbered ( 1) ), to alternate style numbered ( 1. ), and then in the final section back to bullets. I wonder if it might read better if the style was a bit more consistent throughout.
In the "Translation in Steps" section, it might be good to make the different steps stand out somehow. Right now Steps 1-3 are inline with the rest of the text and are not bolded, so tend to get lost in this section.
You have many good references, but do use a few textbooks quite a few times in the article. Additional references or newer versions of some of these textbooks might be good to include just to add more credence to the article. I see that many of the textbooks are from editions that are 5-10+ years old...not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that, I would just assume that is some newer information available.

Again, great job and look forward to seeing the final version of this article in the next 2 weeks. Apoptosis81 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apoptosis81, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I have made the following changes:

I have modified the title of “Chemical properties” to your suggestion. Thank you for the idea; I believe that this title is appropriate.

In terms of the cholesterol pathway image, because the picture consists of mostly text and depicts the pathway very clearly, it is meant to be viewed as part of the article instead of a supporting image. Consequently, it was enlarged and centered instead of being reduced and set to one side. Moreover, because it so clearly and concisely describes the pathway, we did not want to muddle it by re-describing what occurs in the image with a wall of text. As a result, we only highlighted the important steps that define the pathway following the image.

If possible, we’d like to keep the codon table, since it’s useful to know what codon corresponds to a particular amino acid during translation. However, instead of keeping this information in its current spot, we’ll try to move it to the amino acid section. Update: After reviewing the finalized amino acid section, we decided that the codon table will fit best as a link in the "See also" section. Aconch (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of numbering style, I modified it so that all of the processes which have “progression steps” all have the same type of numbering style. The only section where I left the bullet points was the “Properties of chemical reactions” section. When naming the elements needed for biosynthesis, because a “progression” is not taking place and we are simply listing components, bullet points may be more appropriate.

In terms of the “Translation in steps” section, while I agree that bolding would make the steps stand out, the reason that this was not done is because the OA previously noted that bolding should only be applied in the first sentence of the introduction to highlight your topic and any of its synonyms. Update: Rather than directly bolding, I've turned each step into a subheading; now, each translation step stands out. Aconch (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, for the textbook references, we listed those versions of the books because those are the editions that we currently possess. Time permitting, I’ll try to find more recent copies of the textbooks, but either way, this might not be a big issue because the information described in this these textbooks has been established/ has not changed. Update: I found more recent copies of some of the textbooks and have updated their information accordingly. Aconch (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galemu2 will shortly be addressing your suggestions in regards to the amino acid and nucleotide sections. Thank you again for your help. Aconch (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aconch, thanks for the feedback on the review and the changes look great. You can really tell the amount of effort that your group has put into the page. After looking at the article again I had one more question: is there any plan for a header image? As a personal preference I think header images can really make a Wikipedia article stand out as it is often one of the first things people will notice on the page but of course it is not required or desired by everyone. Apoptosis81 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about the header image! It's an excellent suggestion, and we'll look into incorporating one if we find a suitable image. Aconch (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helo Apoptosis81. Thanks for putting in time to review this article. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated. The amino acid section is under construction, and will be up in the next few days. I agree that the nucleotide image looks out of place. I have edited this section. I also removed on of the images, which i thought was un necessary. Galemu2 (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biosynthesis group, I really like the changes that you have made in the last week. I think the rearrangement of the pictures really makes the article flow much better. I think the section on associated diseases and the image of familial hypercholesterolemia enhances the article and is a great topic to cover. You have really done a lot of work to improve the quality of this article over the course of the semester! Apoptosis81 (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments, and for helping us develop our article. We appreciate it very much! Aconch (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Biosynthesis/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I believe that those who wish to know more about catabolism or anabolism who should ctrl+f the desired word on one unified article that includes both.

==Comments from Godwin Ifere== This is a nicely written article, except for a few observations that might make it better.The observations are as follows:

Lead section:

I would suggest that your statement, "substrates are converted to more complex products" seems to narrow the range or boundaries of biosynthesis. Some biosynthesized molecules are not necessarily macromolecules. Even monomers e.g. amino acids, nucleotides are products of biosynthesis. Thus you may consider defining the boundaries of your definition to include, biosynthesis of simple molecules and macromolecules. Otherwise, you may exclude the biosynthesis of simple molecules. It would think that the difficult to understand terminologies such as monomers should be introduced gradually to a lay audience. I thought, some of the statements, such as "In biosynthesis, monomers" ----etc need appropriate citation.

Content:

There is no link between the subheading "Lipids and Purines Nucleotides" in the content section and the lead section. I would think that you give a hint of the subjects or articles in the content in the lead section. Again, the discussion on lipids does not explain how it relates to biosynthesis. again I would think that there much said on purine nucleotide biosynthesis than required to explain its role in biosynthesis. Godwin Ifere 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenwatata (talk • contribs) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 09:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)