User talk:Yawmalik/sandbox

Trans-splicing Peer Review #1

Content

I think your intro paragraph is general and understandable which is good. I did like how the old page included why trans-splicing was different than cis-splicing in this paragraph as well, as I think it may be something that people could get confused with. So maybe you could add that back in.

Your mechanism section, while detailed, is also highly technical. Maybe adding in a general/overall description of the mechanism at the beginning of the paragraph would help to prepare the reader for the details that you give. A figure to go with your description would greatly help the reader’s understanding. Intra-wiki links should be added here to enhance understanding, use double square brackets (such as consensus sequence ) to do this (also add links in the intro paragraph). Further details of how to link to pages with not exactly the same name are covered in Ye’s powerpoint.

I really like your application section. I think it’s not overly specific or detailed which is nice, and I found it informative. Intra-wiki links would definitely be beneficial again here though—especially for the different diseases you mention, so that readers can click to learn more.

In the review I read (PMID 21957027), I did find that there also exists genic trans-splicing (in addition to the SL trans-splicing which is what your mechanism covers). While there is not a lot known about genic trans-splicing, it would be good to at least mention that another type exists, since the page is titled generally “Trans-splicing” (not “SL trans-splicing”). You could do this as part of your intro paragraph, or you could add a section about the different types of trans-splicing.

Figures

Unfortunately, there are no figures. An image or two of how this occurs (a general cartoon of what happens and/or the specific mechanism) would definitely add to the page and increase understanding of the topic.

References

Your references are all from journals except for one, but this is a rather specific topic, so I think that is probably to be expected. There are not more than 10 references (which the peer review page says there should be), but I think the grading scheme required only 5, so I think what you have is probably fine.

Your citations should be made using the “cite” function which is in the top bar, rather than putting in the numbers and typing in the citations in the references section. Ye included a description of how to do this in her presentation (the powerpoint of which is on the ctools site).

Overall

Your introduction and application sections were mostly well done. The mechanism section needs to be adjusted to be understandable by a non-expert. Adding figures and intra-wiki links would greatly enhance the page. Formatting the references properly will allow for additional references to easily be added to the page in the future without having to renumber everything. Bdoc13 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Trans-splicing Peer Review #2

Content

The introduction paragraph is definitely written so that laymen can understand what you're talking about. I agree with the peer review above about the contrast of trans and cis splicing being a good thing to include, since presently you just talk about their similarities, which could get confusing as to why they're separately defined.

The mechanism section is very well written, but can be hard to follow for someone who is not completely familiar with the topics at hand. I suggest either adding an explanatory sentence following each step in the mechanism to explain what each part is, and give the reader a better understanding of the pathway, or, when possible, to add links to other wikipedia pages so that the reader can look up the specifics of the mechanism for him or herself. There are currently no links to other wikipedia entries, so I suggest searching the keywords of your page to see if they are already out there, and adding them in. Also, figures would help a lot, since a lot of people can't fully comprehend something without a means of visualizing it.

The application section is written in a way so that general non-scientific people can understand it. I suggest looking at this form of writing as a basis for the rest of your page, mechanism section in particular. The mentioning of disease solutions is interesting, but there are no links to other wikipedia pages, which could help people unfamiliar with the content understand the topic at hand.

Each section seems an appropriate length when compared to the rest of the article. It is hard to tell if the content is duplicative of other wikipedia articles because none are cited, however it doesn't look like the page goes out of its way to describe anything other than trans-splicing. I found a small typo in your introduction: "Trans-splicing is less common form of RNA splicing" should be "Trans-splicing is A less common form of RNA splicing" but that was the only thing I found. Just figured I'd give you the heads up.

Figures

There are no figures in this article, which is problematic, not only because there is a minimum of three required, but because it is difficult for some people to follow content without being able to see what is going on. Posting figures showing certain areas of the mechanim would help a great deal.

References

The guideline says that there should be more than 10 references, but we were instructed to have at least five, so I think that's just a typo in the guideline. You have six, which is clearly enough. Only one reference is from a non-journal source, but I can imagine it would be difficult to find a source on such specific information that isn't from a journal.

Overall

The overall page is informative and well-written, although I suggest rewording the mechanism section in order to make it more understandble for people unfamiliar with the topic. Also, links to other wikipedia articles would allow your readers to further investigate the topics if they desired. Figures are an incredibly important tool in a wikipedia page, especially a scientific one, because they help the reader visualize the topics at hand. Therefore, I think it is very important that you find some images relating to your topic and insert them where needed. Falynnelana (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Trans-splicing Peer Review #1

Content

The introduction is written well and easily understood for laymen. It does a good job of getting straight to the point of defining trans splicing in relation to the central dogma. That being said, there are a few grammatical errors that can easily be fixed with proofreading. When you talk about the history of trans splicing research, perhaps you could mention what trypanosomatids are in relation to lower and higher eukaryotes. I also think you could briefly mention its similarities to cis-splicing and link to that wiki page. The mechanism paragraph is not quite clear due to all of the technicalities. I get confused throughout the paragraph in regards to when you are talking about trans-splicing and when you are talking about cis-splicing. Perhaps some more detail would clarify this ambiguity, but you should also lay out the general process in the beginning of the paragraph so the reader can prepare for the detail to come. Also, you could add more detail to your examples of application and describe how exactly trans splicing can help patients with the disease. You could definitely link many more terms to other wikipedia pages such as: SL RNA, cis-splicing, and Cystic Fibrosis. You have a lot of room to expand on your ideas and examples without repeating information from other wikipedia sites. You should go into more depth of the process of trans splicing.

Figures

Unfortunately there are no figures uploaded on your page. I found a very helpful figure that compares cis splicing to trans splicing that you could possibly recreate for your introduction. Here is the link http://www.wormbook.org/chapters/www_transsplicingoperons/transsplicingoperons.html A figure would help your readers visualize what you are describing. I think a pathway type figure would be especially helpful.

References

You did a very good job of utilizing all of your cited resources in your article, and they are distributed evenly. Perhaps you can use those references more frequently in your article, but i'm sure that will come up with more detail and explanation.

Overall

The most beneficial aspect of your article is that when I finished reading it, I understood the process you were describing. I am however not the laymen high schooler reading this article. You could make more general descriptions in your paragraphs before you get into the details. I would also make sure to proofread very carefully and don't forget to add a figure. Dsrapp (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Good work! Please address the issues mentioned by other reviewers. And a few suggestions here.

1. Your references are not done in the right way. Please fix them. If you need help with how to do this, besides reviewing the slides I posted on CTools site, you can also watch the videos on the following two pages.

Citing sources tutorial, part 1

Citing sources tutorial, part 2

2. You did not have any internal links to other Wikipedia articles for terms and jargon in your addition. e.g. RNA processing, eukaryotes ... Please add some internal links as you can.You can do that with the syntax [[Eukaryote | enkaryotes]]

3. You don't have any figures. If it's because technical difficulties, please see the video tutorial below.

Editing basics - Uploading and adding images

Hope it helps! Please let me know if you have any questions.ChemLibrarian (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

GSI Comments

Hi Yawmalik,

Thank you for your addition to this page. Take into account the detailed points above when writing the final draft. Great job!

Elizabeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemStudent24601 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)