User talk:Olaneli/sandbox

VS(Varkud Satellite)Peer Review 1

1. The introduction is overburdened with information. General discussion on the importance of VS ribozyme will be more helpful for non-experts rather than putting details of structural and functional aspects of it.

2.When talking about the structure of the ribozyme, provide a labelled picture just beside the section, highlighting the helices or the important structural sites.

3.Schematic diagram of the catalytic mechanism of VS ribozyme will be helpful to readers to visualize the whole process.

4. Linking the scientific terms with existing pages in wikipedia (e.g. ribozyme, transesterification, hairpin ribozyme, SN2 mechanism) would be helpful for readers.

5. Brief explanation of the scientific terms (e.g. nucleolyic, thiophilic, pentacovalent) would make the article more accessible to non-experts.

6. Linking the references to their corresponding referring sentences through numbering would make the article more handy for the readers.

7. Overall, sufficient information is gathered in this article. However, reduction of the use of complex scientific term would make the article accessible to the non-experts.

Soumigchem (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
melum_103 (talk) 13:30, 30 Oct 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VS Ribozyme Peer Review 2

Some elements of the introduction would be helpful to non-experts, but specific references to nucleotides and loops make it seem a little technical for a general overview. These elements should be included in a structure or function paragraph. The image that was included is not formatted in the correct way and is more appropriate for the structure section. The last sentence of the structure section with the word "basically" makes the article seem a little too informal. The first two sentences of the active site description are a little hard to read and need appropriate citation. It may be helpful to combine the active site and structure sections (make the AS a subsection as a structural element). The possible catalytic mechanism section needs some proofreading and appropriate citation of claims made. The way articles are referenced in the article itself (as well as the reference section) are different than typical Wikipedia articles and should be corrected. If it is possible to find them, more figures of both the possible mechanism and the structure of the ribozyme would enhance this article. There is a considerable amount of information in literature that could be used to enhance the introduction (family of ribozymes, etc.). In the structure of the AS section, you could also include an image of the structure of the substrate. Overall this is a solid article with a lot of raw information that can be used to make it a very good article. A few little edits such as the inclusion of more images and grammar changes would take it to the next level.

Wsdixon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GSI comments

Hi Olaneli, Thank you for your addition to this page. Take into consideration the above comments and I think you will have a very good page.

Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemStudent24601 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Good work! Just a couple of more suggestions here.

1. Looks like you did not do the internal link right. You should use [[]] instead of [] and use the name of the article you'd like to refer to instead of the URL starting with http://. For example, if you want to do an internal link like ribozyme, you need to type in [[Ribozyme | ribozyme]] instead of the way you did it. It's highly recommended if you can go through the article to do as many as internal links to other terms as possible.

2. I see that you have fixed the reference issues. There are still the access date error due to problematic format. Actually, I see that most references you have there are journal articles. So, the access date is not necessary. Please just go to the syntax of each citation in the text and delete the access date part, you should be OK. Only if you are citing dynamic content like a webpage, it's necessary to have access date.

3. Although the original content on the page before your editing was short, you should still consider incorporating what's there, especially the references into your own writing. Just to respect others' work. Others will respect your work too.

Hope it helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. ChemLibrarian (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]