Wikipedia:Peer review/Protein/archive1

Protein edit

One of the most important subjects in molecular biology deserves a better article. In the last couple of weeks many references have been added and the focus of the article has been improved, especially by devolving information on dietary protein to its own article. Now it needs some prose tightening and some outside opinions. Thoughts on the "Cellular functions", "Regulatory mechanisms" and "Methods of study" sections, which are the least polished, would be especially appreciated. Opabinia regalis 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to the function section in the hopes of making it clearer and more accessible to those not familiar with the subject. Opabinia regalis 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More figures are needed, especially towards the middle of the article, to break the text up a bit. I also had a go at simplifying the intro and hope I haven't lost any points you wanted to include. TimVickers 02:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I think that was a good idea; the details of translation weren't needed in the lead. I added one image and noticed you've added some nice ones too. The only one I'm a little skeptical about is the "one gene-one enzyme" graphic, because it doesn't seem to illustrate much and isn't strictly true due to alternative splicing. Opabinia regalis 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, it was the only one I could find that was a simple diagram without too much detail. Maybe we'll find something better, but I suppose I could draw one. TimVickers 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good overview article. Now perhaps a few more key references (I know how difficult that is, because every statement is potentially a whole article). Some references could be provided for the historical section as well - these are generally not that hard to find. JFW | T@lk 06:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, O, um, I think the article would read a lot better if it were more terse and organized more ruthlessly; I would work for more sinewy, vivid prose and a stronger flow between sections and even within most paragraphs. Also, the article seems only ~1/2-2/3 complete on most topics; the History section is particularly bad, poorly organized and maybe 10% complete. A few sections seem to have strange ideas or emphases, as if they were written by people with no first-hand experience with proteins in the lab. I'll try to make some contributions to help out and clarify what I mean in more detail. Hey to k, Willow 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions and revisions. I totally agree that it's currently in an awkward state of both wordy and incomplete. My original intention was to get rid of the big ugly {{unreferenced}} tag, but of course adding refs means changing the text to match, so... here we are. In subdividing the functions section I was trying to avoid a laundry-list-sounding blob of text; I'm tempted to just follow the Lodish book in using the categories: enzymes, structural proteins, transport proteins, regulatory proteins, and motor proteins, but that seems a little too finely divided for such a broad text. I'm concerned that "record-setting" protein dissociation constants/rate accelerations won't mean much to the casual reader who lacks a sense of scale on the subject.

The history section was originally written by Peta, who will hopefully be able to add in the references when he gets a chance. Obviously an entire article could be written on the history of proteins in biochemistry (I'm assuming there isn't one written but evading my search), but I'm not sure how much more is appropriate here since history isn't likely to be the primary interest of most readers. What do you think? Opabinia regalis 03:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article really needs to better handle the "common" information on protien. When the term protein is most often used by a wider population it is regards to diet and nutrition. The Nutrition section is buried at the bottom of the artle and still reads like chemistry (denatured?). I think the process of digestion can be left to the daughter article, but do talk about the role of protein in diet. Most diets are planned around the protein component. This aspect should be covered. When humans plan a meal they first make sure the protein is suffcient then worry about "sides". When developing and a feed for livestock first the protein is accounted for (always the most expensive component) then the other dietary requirements are balenced around this. Feeds never contain more protein than the animal requires because it is waste of money and will be just excreted through the kidneys. This is a very important aspect of the topic that is not being dealt with curently. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that nutrition should be given a more prominent position, but I think the section as it stands could be made a bit more reader friendly. A couple of other suggestions, there is no mention of proteomics in the methods section; there is no discussion of failures in aa metabolism in humans (a while ago I made this List of fatty acid metabolism disorders - a amino acid one might be a good addition to tie in with this article) or other organisms (they were very important in wokring out basic genetics) which would probably be worth a mention in the nutrition or history sections; emerging fields is a bit of a misleading section heading - most of these methods have been in practice for over 10 years - mabye it would be better divided into methods of structural and functional analysis?; prions are probably worth a mention, as are inteins, as "special" proteins. --Peta 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm coming in late, but I was quite impressed. I think the article has a good balance between providing information and detail on a broad subject, while also pointing people to other Wikipedia articles that are relevant. Dr Aaron 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]