User:Naironfire

Click on sandbox to see my five sources for my article

Feedback to the article you edited (Myelin protein zero) by Kensei Kishimoto:

It was hard to see which parts you edited, so I am giving you my thoughts on the whole article instead of parts you edited.

###Feedback on the content

I feel like neuropathy is mentioned in the topic sentences and Associations with neuropathy section. If you think it is important to mention phenotypic characteristic of this protein's mutation, I think you can just mention that it causes neuropathy in the topic sentences, but more deeply explain them and associations with each neuropathic disease in the later section to avoid repeating information.

Also, there is very little information under Interactions section. You may not have edited this part, but it seems like it is very lacking in terms of its content compared to other sections. So you might want to think about adding more information here if there is enough literature. You can bring this section to the bottom since it has least content and should be read at least priority compared to other sections.

In the second paragraph of Structure section, you write that "Myelin protein zero is considered to be structurally similar to the immunoglobin family because it has a hydrophobic core". I think you can explain more why it is structurally similar to immunoglobin family since most of proteins have hydrophobic core. It helps to say what makes them particularly alike.

I also found it interesting that MPZ is a single-membrane protein. I thought most membranes are bi-layered.

###Minor technical suggestions

It is better to use the same abbreviation consistently throughout the article since you refer to the protein using full name but also with different short-hands.

##Overall structure

Your overall structure of the article makes sense in that Structure coming before Function. I like the pictures and information on the side as well like RNA expression levels.

I don't see grammatical errors or biases in this article.

Kensei Kishimoto (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer Feedback (Alisa Chuang)

Overall:

• The writing was pretty understandable, and interesting.
• As a general recommendation, use more proper pronouns instead of "it" for clarity.
• In terms of article/paragraph structures, the information between the different sources doesn't really flow well within the paragraphs - maybe reorganize the ideas to flow better so that it doesn't sound as stilted. Better transitions may help.
• There was a lack of voice, as the writing sounded more like many ideas cobbled together instead of a coherent and cohesive article.
• I think the introduction was generally pretty clear, and that the titles of the subsections accurately described their contents.
• In addition, the order of the sections make sense, as does the lead of each section.
• I didn't feel like the writing was biased, nor did I see any major grammatical issues.
• I would like to see slightly more consistency with naming the protein throughout the article.

Specifically:

• As I'm sure you may have noticed, the section on Interactions is a bit short. Maybe expand more on what the interaction is. Also, in associations with nephropathy, maybe add the prevalence of such diseases when regarding the mutation of myelin protein zero, and/or add pictures of what the diseases look like.
• I think the numbering on the amino acids is a bit specific, but not terribly off topic.
• The first sentence of the article does sound a bit off to me - maybe add a comma or rephrase.
• I would like to see a section on possible applications to memory or learning, if there's anything like that written in papers.
• Preferably more citations in the beginning of the Structure subsection.
• Images of dimers and tetramers of myelin protein zero, or an image of how myelin protein zero keeps the myelin sheets together might be cool to add.

Alisachuang (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)