User talk:PeabodySam/sandbox
Firstly, the to do section captures very well the work that still needs to be done with the article. However, I will provide my input on those things you stated and other things I came up with. The structure of the article needs to be more wikipedia-esque more than anything. I am not sure if this is just for the draft version more than anything but it seems like the blocks of text are being interrupted a little to often. The "History section is split into two blocks of text. I believe it would be more beneficial to keep it as one.
The Structure section seems to have the same problem but I believe adding separate subsections for each enzyme would be more beneficial. I am not sure how much information is available on each enzyme but breaking them down and giving them their own subsections in both structure and biological function sections would be helpful rather than just breaking the blocks of text. Talking about peptidase 1 enzymes in general in the biological function section is good and gives a general overview before delving to the specifics of each type. However adding subsections for each type would definitely make the article better organizationally. Note that in the first section of the biological function it says the peptidase 1 enzymes are located in the fecal matter of mites, but der p 1 and pso o 1 is also found in the gut. Also, in the biological functions section there is basically no information on the function of Eur m 1 other than information on the location of where it is found. The same applies for Der f 1. It may be beneficial to add a separate section on where the enzymes come from or add some information on why the source is relevant for each type. the To do list mentions citation clean up and the article does need one. In the introduction 6 sources are cited following the first sentence. I am not sure if this is necessary, but it may be if they are all published articles. I know it was in the original article so it may worth checking the sources/contacting the articles author. With those in mind it is definitely encyclopedic writing and it does focus on one subject. The article does have a neutral point of view and has relatively high clarity.
Some areas that could use better wording include the introduction. I was not aware that a family of enzymes was being discussed until much later and it would be beneficial to bring up earlier. There are places in the text that are a little to complicated at times and are confusing for me (a biochem major). For example, I am not sure what IgE binding is at all and there is no link to click on and find out more. With that in mind including more links and a see also section would benefit the article greatly. Also second paragraph of structure starts off with a sentence saying "group 1 allergens are generally nearly identical" It seems that the generally nearly, while not incorrect, seems to waste words. Bozal243 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
LeiZhang_Piaker_U3PR
Summary: Peptidase 1 is an enzyme commonly found in group 1 mite allergens. These allergens generally have similar structures, where the Der p 1 allergen is often used as model for drug target. Different group 1 allergens can be found in different mite species, where each has its own molecular characteristics.
Major Points: The article has an audience level of 3.5 out of 5 [in my own imaginary scale], so the public might not be able to fully comprehend the subject [Although I’m not sure how this could be changed, because a majority of the vocabulary is a concept of its own]. Watch out for the audience, but it definitely helps that many of the terms are linkable to other wiki articles. Each allergen could be separated by its own subsection. Adding pictures might be nice too (could add pictures of the mite themselves). So peptidase 1 is an enzyme, but something I was not sure about is whether group 1 allergens all contain the enzyme, or whether each allergen had different versions of the enzyme. Some clarification could be made on this. Going along this subject line, I think the article mostly talks about the allergens themselves rather than the actual enzyme. In this sense, the article might be better named Group 1 Allergens (Mite) and then mention the enzyme within each allergen instead. In the case that the author wants to keep the single enzyme subject, the History section could talk about the evolutionary background of the enzyme (by looking at species trees). This can be found through http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/ [it’s not a trap, I swear!], along with other information such as diseases associated with the enzyme and metabolic pathways. Other sections could talk about the different structures of the enzyme (primary, secondary, etc). [It might be that this is all irrelevant if peptidase 1 and the allergens were actually the same thing].
Minor Points: Is there a better way to place the different allergens in parenthesis in the first sentence? [This is not that big of a deal; I just found it strange, so it’s fine if it’s left the way it is]. When HDM is first mentioned, might be good to write out what it stands for. Watch out for wordyness and try to keep the sentences simple (ex: “Structurally, group 1 allergens are generally nearly identical…” can take out “generally” to make it less wordy). Try to keep the vocabulary simple: for example, simply say alleviated instead of ameliorated. ReadingFrame25 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)