Talk:Cobalamin riboswitch

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge done as per complete consensus below. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Just wanted to moot the idea that this seems confusing to have two pages on Cobalamin riboswitches-- with different names that don't really mean anything w.r.t type/function. Having both pages merged might make it obvious the new 'AdoCbl' as a subclass. Both pages are also currently very short and it might help clarify things a bit to have them both together. Jennifer_Rfm (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Alexbateman (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. And since you are Rfam, you pretty much have the freedom to make those judgement calls anyhow.Chrisvanlang (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic Peer Review 1

Introduction

Looks great! I would add more citations, maybe tagging the Wikipedia articles themselves. You could include "(UTR)" as a shortcut for untranslated region.

Very nice tie to future applications saying that riboswitches have gotten a lot of attention lately for therapeutic potential.

Including a photo or diagram on how riboswitches work here could be informational.

I think the intro looks great. I agree with Maddie, linking the other wikipedia pages could be really helpful in terms of clarity and "introduction" to your topic. I also like how you guys managed to mention all the subtopics you plan to discuss, also in a very natural and unforced manner. More info on VB12 is also an excellent idea, and a chart to display the # identified riboswitches (if possible) would be the most clear way to display. Annegphillips (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ligand Selectivity

A picture could help here since there are lots of cofactors discussed.

This first sentence needs some grammatical work, as it is now is difficult to follow. Since it was mentioned in the intro: i think a further expansion on how ligand selectivity is conserved across species is needed. If you guys have the time or the resources a note on riboswitch classes and nomenclature could also be interesting (not necessary for the clarity of the paper though). Again, I agree with Maddie, a picture would help clarify as this section could end up being very dense with all the scientific terminology. Annegphillips (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Cobalamin riboswitch distribution

It'll be super interesting to hear about the potential areas of interest. The idea of designer probiotics definitely will add some novel value. I'm not entirely what you mean about species, but if it's about different animal species with these riboswitches it could be cool to tie in some articles about this.

Future applications could become its own section in some manner.

I think this section can definitely be the bulk of your wiki page. Your first topic on species might be a typo and some of the info got cut off but as it is now isn't clear. I also think future applications could be its own separate section (super interesting developments being made and could make inferences on where the research is going). A further discussion on the application to antibiotic research sounds super cool too. Of the topics you have sketched out, i think you cover a good range of applications. Annegphillips (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Article coverage and neutrality

The article covers some super interesting topics around this riboswitch. It's neutral and doesn't focus too much on one topic or another so far which is great!

I'm really excited to see how your guys' article ends up! I think this is a really cool topic with a lot of potential for expansion. So far everything is very neutral and discussed from a third party, scientific perspective (as are the sources). If you guys expand on the future applications or clinical/research implications I think this would be your only subtopic that may present the potential of biases info so just keep an eye on that! Annegphillips (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Your sources look great too! I like how it varies between places like Mayo Clinic to peer reviewed sources because it shows the wide variety of topics surrounding this riboswitch.

Mhink123 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Mhink123

I like all the sources as well! Linking other related wikipedia pages could also be super helpful for clarity in the article. Some sourced images could also really bring your article up to the next level. Everything looks great so far guys! Annegphillips (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 3

Lead

The lead appears to be from the original article and it provides a good summary of the topic. The importance of the topic should be added to the lead by the authors. The current lead is also written in a way that is easily understandable by the general audience. The introduction seems to contradict some of the information in the lead.

Structure

It is not clear what direction the structure of this article is going. Hopefully, the authors will add more sections. I think the article could be improved by adding a section specifically about riboswitches, one about Cobalamin, one about the cobalamin riboswitch, and one about the significance of this riboswitch. The introduction should be incorporated better into the article, and the ligand specificity section should be moved between the section of cobalamin riboswitches and the section on the significance.

Coverage

Right now, the sections are of equal length and importance. I think that the introduction should be dispersed into different sections and more information should be added to the article as a whole. I think that there are gaps in the information that has been gathered (see the structure section for guidance on adding more information). The article avoids drawing conclusions and avoids trying to convince the reader of a certain perspective.

Neutral content

The article is presented neutrally and provides good summaries of the information.

Reliable sources

The sources appear to be reliable but are poorly integrated into the article. I think the authors should either add more sources to add more information, or the author should provide more information that is outlined in the current sources. The introduction section does not have any sources or links to other wikipedia articles. Both of those should be added. Hstuhlma (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Hstuhlma

Nils comments

Good start. Now please flesh out the specifics on this riboswitch, elucidating its structure and potential applications, for example in cellular imaging from the Batey group; add a figure or two on the folding and function and make sure to link to other Wikipedia articles.

Ngwalter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Catherine's feedback

I do not have anything to suggest that hasn't been said yet. I look forward to reading the final article!

Cawilhel (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MLibrarian feedback

1) This article still needs a lot of work.

2) Grammar needs to be corrected

3) Sections have to be better defined. Once defined, please create a Content

4) Instead of listing sources, please use a citing tool

5) In the first introduction section you shall start by explaining what cobalamin riboswitch is instead of explaining what riboswitches are. For riboswitch, simply link to the existing Wiki. MLibrarian (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

6) Please use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PDB_link for how to link to the PDB structure on the Wiki page MLibrarian (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)