User talk:Nmcmyn/sandbox

Peer Review Suggestions from DrLibraryCat

Thank you for your work on this article, and thank you to the reviewers below who offered such detailed suggestions. I think Peer Reviewer 5 has done a good job of pointing out where the language becomes too complicated for a general audience. You'll need to simplify and expand some of your explanations. I really like how you've divided the article into digestible sections, but the lead section before the contents box should be shorter.DrLibraryCat (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 1

The group has given a much clearer picture about DNA transposons and also gave a brief background of its history and significance in the introduction which is not mentioned in the original Wikipedia entry of this topic. It is required for the readers to get a certain urge to read further about the topic and get some important information within the introduction.

Majhisrijoni (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Majhisrijoni

Topic Peer Review 2

The flow diagrams regarding the mechanism of the movement of transposons gives a better idea of the different stages of the entire mechanism. Although it is better not to mention the word "diagram" under the figures.

Majhisrijoni (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Majhisrijoni

Topic Peer Review 3

The group might want to check for the spelling error made in the heading, "Politrons" which I feel the correct spelling is "Polintrons" which is correct in the rest of the article.

Majhisrijoni (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Majhisrijoni

Topic Peer Review 4

The group might want to do a proof reading of their article and check for preposition and grammatical errors. Like in the sentence, under the heading "Helitrons", "Eventually the the entire strand..." The sentence "First, a single stranded extra-chromosomal Polintron..." can be written as "First, a single stranded extra-chromosomal Polintron element is excised from the host DNA, using the integrase, during the host genome replication.

Majhisrijoni (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Majhisrijoni

Topic Peer Review 5

DNA transposon peer revision:

Major Points: In general, it looks like only half of the whole article has been edited. The introduction is good and does a decent job of talking about the subject. It is really easy and clear to read. One thing is that the line that mentions mutations, and I’m guessing that will be a section that is added later, but I still want that to be elaborated. The section of the movement of DNA transposons needs to be easier to understand. I feel like I’m reading a textbook in this section. Going step by step through the mechanisms can help, like going first the enzyme binds the sequence then this happens. These words can help give a better idea of what is happening. Otherwise, it can become harder to follow the mechanism. I would be concerned if this is too closely paraphrased to the article it was taken from. The rest of the article does not look like it is edited at all from the original, so I mostly added suggestions of what could be discussed there. Throughout the article, you kept everything neutral. I saw that the Helitrons mechanism was a hypothesis and not completely confirmed. The sources look to be reliable. I think you can get rid of the Class II TE Activity in Humans since that is already mentioned in the introduction.

Introduction:

1. Go to the basics, and make sure that you say that the transposon is a part of the DNA sequence. It is a bit confusing and annoying to have to click a separate link to have an idea of what DNA transposons physical are.

2. I think the introduction should organize the different sections. At this moment I can only relate the sections talking about the different mechanisms of DNA transposon. The creation of the mutation should have a section

3. The “cut and paste”, is that one new, so it does not have a scientific name yet. Does it belong to one of the other categories?

4. This section is overall good, and all my edits are minor.

Movement of DNA transposons:

1. Just a general question of do we know why one of these mechanisms if preferred to others? Also, are they specific to certain mutations or certain DNA?

2. If you can make the image for the “cut and paste” larger, it is hard to see the words in the mechanism. Especially since writing the mechanism can be very dense and pictures help. The “cut and paste” is the best of the three. Also, is that found in a specific place or is that not known.

3. The lines first line of the Helitrons makes it seem that “cut and paste” is eukaryotic class II, but that is not specifically mentioned in that section. Put the line of how Helitrons are the first discovered first, and then talk about the mechanism. The line seems more of an introduction to Helitrons than the conclusion.

4. Try if you can to get an image or mechanism for Polintons. Also, make sure you are using the proper spelling.

Classification:

1. Just double-check that there aren’t any new ones, I clicked on the site and I do not know how much transposon has been updated. You may also want to double reference and see if another bank has the same information. Are any of them argued about?

Examples:

1. For the maize do you know what color relates to the specific DNA transposons? 2. You need to add something here, for instance, why is it important that Drosophila have DNA transposon. 3. Are there any new and more interesting examples or is there any way that these mechanisms relate to the laboratory discovery or the medical field.

Class II TE Activity in Humans:

1. This line was said in the introduction I am pretty sure. I’m not sure if this section is needed at all.

Evolution:

1. I think you can, in general, go in-depth to see if there are any more studies relating to this especially the superfamily. 2. Go more in the different species see if they have any interesting chemistry. 3. Do we know which eukaryote has the highest rate of transposon DNA and is there a reason why that is the highest?

Srudinru (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Srudinru

Topic Peer Review 6

"The former contains a complete set of enzyme characteristics of its family, while the latter uses the enzymatic machinery of the former for their amplification in a genome" I think this sentence structure is a little cumbersome and could be more clearly written.

What is the purpose of this sentence from the end of the introduction? -- "Transposons have become more and more well documented in the host genome and can therefore be used as powerful tools in genetic engineering." It is in its own paragraph, but seems like it goes with the synopsis of McClintock's work.

"Helitrons encode a putative (unknown) ..." Is it necessary to parenthetically explain what putative means? You might just write putative or just write unknown.

"Polintons are a group of eukaryotic class II transposable elements..." These were called politrons before. Is this a typo?

The maize section under examples and the Class II TE Activity in Humans section do not offer too much new information beyond what is covered in the introduction. Could these sections be expanded any further?

"Different Eukaryotic species have differing rates of transposable elements in their genomes" I think this could be more clearly written as "Eukaryotic genomes differ in transposable element content" without changing the meaning.

The term "fossils" is explained in the section lass II TE Activity in Humans, but it was still unclear where this term came from. Who called them fossils so that now they need to be put in quotation marks?

Ihall14 (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Ihall14

Peer Review MLibrarian

I like your article how you extended it and introduced figures. I would suggest proof-reading it again, as was suggested earlier, and linking the content, e.g. Drosophila to the existing Wiki articles MLibrarian (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)