User talk:Scott5485/sandbox
XNA Peer Review 1
[edit]The introductory section is good at explaining the background, and it is generally accessible to non-experts. You could explain some terms more deeply such as transforming XNA. The content is sufficient in each section, and you do a good job linking relevant Wikipedia pages. If there are other Wikipedia pages that could be linked, I would link them because a lot of these concepts are not familiar. For those that are not possible, it would really help to describe concepts such as FANA with more information and/or figures. To improve the page, you could be much more in depth with some of the information. For example, rather than saying a “special polymerase enzyme,” you could give the specific name and compare and contrast it to DNA/RNA polymerase. Most of the content seems unique and relevant to the topic of XNA. I d not think it is duplicating other information already on Wikipedia. However, try to avoid simply rewording scientific articles. It would be more helpful to actually rephrase the concepts and put it in your own words to make a more cohesive article.
There is no figure provided, so make sure at least one figure is added. For FANA, you write that it is pictured top right. Is this the figure you plan on presenting? I assume you will add a figure because it is required so just make sure it is contributing to the topic. It would be helpful to visualize an XNA since it is not a very familiar concept for non-experts, so I would suggest making that your figure.
There are many references, and they are all cited within the text of the article. You do include one or two non-journal sources but I would encourage to add more since I found a few that you had not included. This is one specific one I found: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a7636/xna-synthetic-dna-that-can-evolve-8210483/ It could add to your “Implications” section because it talks about how XNA can be used to advance medicine because they would degrade slower than regular enzymes. It also goes into detail about how XNA can be used in a variety of ways so it might help with improving the content in this section.
Overall, great job with the content and references. You explained your topic at an appropriate level of depth and relevance for the given audience. However, some concepts could be expanded and explained better within the actual article rather than by just providing links, especially in the Implications section. That way, your reader would better understand the full story about XNA, since linking to huge Wikipedia articles (i.e. biosafety) will not give the reader a good understanding of how that topic fits into XNA research or findings. Elaborating on these in the context of the article itself will add a lot to your article. I would also go through and proofread your spelling and grammar.
Rgudipudi (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Rgudipudi
XNA Peer Review 2
[edit]In terms of content, I think the introductory section for Xeno nucleic acid is very clear and easy to understand for non-experts or students. Many important terms are linked to their respective concepts, however there are some terms that I feel need to be linked to their concept (if possible). For example, 1,5-anhydrohexitol nucleic acid, or HNA and cyclohexene nucleic acid, or CeNA (under “Structure”), and transcription and recombination (under “Implications”) should all be linked to their respective concepts in case the reader would like more background information. I would recommend reading through the content from the perspective of a high school student, who may not be familiar with topics that seem simpler to college students (such as transcription and recombination). The group does a good job of addressing important highlighted topics and looking at XNA from many different viewpoints (containing detailed background information, a clear structural description, and significance of XNA studies). I do not believe the XNA content is duplicative of other Wikipedia content. The current site has very little information about XNA, and the group picks up where the current page leaves off and expands logically on the topic. A suggestion for expansion on XNA implications would be to address the procedures behind how XNA and DNA/RNA were studied together. I think the “Implications” section is currently good, but has room for more in-depth descriptions of the referenced experiments. There are no figures shown in the Sandbox page for XNA, however based on the criteria for this assignment I am under the assumption that the group will be adding one or more figures to the page. A possible figure idea would be the structural configuration of XNA, or even going further to make a three-dimensional image of XNA (if possible). Another suggestion for a figure could be a simple diagram addressing the similarities and/or differences between XNA and DNA and RNA. Currently, the 9 references exceed the minimum requirement of 5 references needed. The references are inclusive of non-journal sources. One of the references is from a daily publication site called “io9,” that covers present and future science/culture. Overall, I think Group 6 has done an excellent job on their Wikipedia page. After reading about XNA, I am curious to learn more about the nucleic acid and its future use in scientific research. I was able to easily follow the content without feeling overwhelmed with scientific jargon. The in-text citations using superscripted numbers makes it very easy to quickly find a specific reference (this is something I want to put in my own group’s Wikipedia page).
Bharmahe (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Bhargavi Maheshwer
XNA Peer Review 3
[edit]The introductory section is definitely accessible to non-experts but it reads somewhat convolutedly. For example, the initial sentence states exactly what an Xeno nucleic acid is but the following (2nd) sentence states that as of 2011, six types of synthetic sugars have been shown to form nucleic acid backbones…Are these six synthetic sugars xeno nucleic acids? I assume they are but the wording could be a little clearer and precise. Moving on in the intro paragraph, again the language is a bit confusing. It reads, “Research is now being done…The study of its production and application…” Again it’s difficult to discern if the creation of synthetic polymerases to transform XNA is xenobiology, or if the general study of XNA is known as xenobiology. The intro could definitely be a bit longer since upon reading it in entirety, as a layman, I don’t see what it could be used for or why it’s important on a broad scope. The last sentence of the intro where it reads, “and therefore useless to natural DNA-based organisms,” is a bit off-putting; therefore, instead of discussing how it’s useless maybe add why it is very pertinent to biology/genetics/biochem to instill further interest in the reader. The background section is good length and divulges essential details. Linking the word “polymerase” would be a good addition. The “Structure” and “Implications” sections are well-written and follows a good general to specific writing style making it easy for the reader to follow along and build on previously mentioned information. In regards to figures, I do not currently see any figures on the page. A potential suggestion would be providing the structure of an XNA molecule or something involving the synthesis of XNA. Additionally, a comparison of an XNA to DNA or RNA molecule would be rather insightful. In regards to references, there appear to be plenty of them, 9, where only 5 are technically required. All references are in proper form and appear to be cited/linked correctly. The diversity of the sources is also appropriate for the topic in that many journals specific to synthetic and genetically modified biology are cited. The overall presentation of the page is professional and well-written. The in-text links to citations are very helpful in guiding the reader to the specific source information was taken from. The only major areas for improvement are in the continuity domain. By this I mean the beginning of the page (intro and background) reveal very specific information that maybe could be mentioned later on for a clearer understanding. The actual content in the page's entirety is pertinent, precise, and useful for understanding xenobiology and XNA in general but the actual presentation and the order in which it is divulged could use some fine-tuning. Additionally, it would be beneficial to maybe add more human related or health related implications to the “Implications” section since a layman of synthetic biology might not understand what is being talked about in that section. A potential last addition to the background or intro section could be the history of how XNA was actually discovered and then connecting that discovery to XNA's potential further application. In conclusion, the page is well-written and provides an adequate amount of information regarding XNA to give a layman a general understanding of what it is and its significance.
Brian Golasa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangolasa (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
XNA Peer Review 4
[edit]I like that you kept the introduction section how it is. I think this was a very straight to the point overview of what you are talking about. In the next section, I would give the actual year that the XNA was made, if you can find this information. I also do not think that you need to clarify what a ribozyme is, since you have the link to the Wikipedia page of what this is already. I think this may confuse the reader how you have it. If you can find the date that the special polymerase enzyme was founded, this would be helpful too because it would provide a timeline about when XNA was invented versus when it was able to really be used. Overall, I think this paragraph is very useful to give people an idea of how new this technology is.
I think the structure section is great. It gives an idea of how DNA and RNA are different than XNA. I think the figure you plan to include of FANA will be very helpful for people to get an idea of how this is different than a normal nucleotide, as it is kind of hard to imagine. I would change the last few sentences of this section a bit. I think you could just state the names of these different nucleic acids of the XNA, and then provide the uses of the different types in the implications section.
Next, I like the first sentence of the implications section. It gets straight to the point and clarifies for me what the actual purpose of the XNA is. It is very easy to understand and shows why XNA is worth talking about. The only change I would make is by moving what the different XNA nucleotides could be used for from the Structure section to this last section, as I said in the previous paragraph.
You have plenty of references, and I am glad that you included ones that are not from scientific journals. This will provide those without background knowledge to either get more information, or clarify what is on your page. You seem to have a substantial amount of information on XNA, but perhaps you could compare it more to DNA and RNA. I am still somewhat confused on all of the differences and similarities between these. Although this topic could be very broad, you seem to have covered the most important things without making the page too overwhelming. One thing that I may add to this is information about how a life form may be able to be created out of XNA, and how this would be positive and negative for our society. Explain how this could be used by our society. I think this would intriguing to many people, and is probably where this research is headed.
Overall, I think this is a great page. I would check your spelling and grammar in the Structure section, because I saw some problems there. You did a great job linking things on your page to their corresponding Wikipedia page, which will benefit users. I am excited to see the figure, as I think this is a great choice to provide clarification of what these nucleotides actually look like. I think it would be very easy to draw this in ChemDraw. I think you did a great job getting to the point of things and not elaborating too much, making this very easy for people without background knowledge to understand.
Emma Herrman
Suggestions from ChemLibrarian
[edit]Good job with writing and formatting the article. Here are my suggestions.
- Remember to delete the heading Introduction when you move the article to the formal space. The lead section doesn't need that. It's great that you incorporated the original content into your article.
- As an encyclopedia article, it may be better to name the Background section as History and the Implications section as Applications. The content of the Implications section may need to be modified a little bit accordingly too.
- I see that you have not added any images to the article yet. Please check out slide 21 and 37 of the Slides for Wikipedia Editing Basics I posted on the CTools site for link to video tutorials and notices about copyright issues.
ChemLibrarian (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Review from GSI
[edit]It is a well written organized article. Nonetheless, I think, it has scope of improvement if the group consider the following suggestions:
1. A comparative study of different XNAs in a table form, in terms of their structures, special features and applications can make the article more user-friendly and interesting.
2. Addition of any in vivo study, performed to test the biocompatibilty of XNA, would strengthen the practical applications of this type of nucleic acids. The question regarding the chances of up-taking XNA by cells during transfection is unanswered here.
3. Lastly, as a minor point, I would like to suggest the group to put more information about Philipp Holliger and Vitor Pinheiro, especially the institution they belong to.