User talk:Hakmatnujoom/sandbox

I made several grammatical changes and added the "Peer Review #1" section with comments. I hope these are helpful to you. BioKnitter (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hakmat, I am going to review yoursSSASHWIN (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the first sentence, You can use transcription factor II Human (TF II H) and instead of using 'having roles', you can use "involve".

2. Instead of using (ref1), you can use Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). tag as shown in the tutorial.

3. No need of bolding text "TFIIH functions after a DNA lesion". If you want you can use it as separate heading, that will be appropriate.

4. You can also use functions as another subheading under the section "Mammalian TFIIH"

That's end of my reviewSSASHWIN (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

peer review

Hello Hakmat, I see that your article is well organized but I have few suggestions. it would be be better if you link the references to the sources rather than writing ( ref 1) and also if you make a header for the TFIIH functions. Njoudyk (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

peer review #3

hello Hekmat i think you should cite your references so it could be easier to look at it for more clarification, but overall it looks great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalharbi2016 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #1

The break-down of complexes and subunits for the mammalian TFIIH might be better as a bulleted list with sub-sections. This would provide visual clarity. Alternatively, I think it needs to at least be divided into more sentences for clarity (run-on sentence currently).

The sentence "TFIIH functions after a DNA lesion has been recognized by either the global genome repair (GGR) pathway or the transcription-coupled repair (TCR) pathway of NER (Ref 3)" could use some re-wording. I do not currently understand what it is trying to say. Also, should the first few words be in bold as they currently are? Or is that an error?

Overall this looks like it will be a useful addition to the current TFIIH page. The references should be linked (so you can click on a reference and are automatically redirected to the reference section below)--this will also keep track of reference numbers for you so you don't have to. I would recommend linking key words to other Wikipedia pages for readers to look up more information as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakmatnujoom (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]