From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should the endonuclease page briefly explain the roles of these enzymes, then link to the respective articles (ie separate articles for restriction enzymes, DNases)? Abstraktn 01:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I am suggesting that this link be directly linked to restriction enzymes. Active contributor 05:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    That doesn't seem like a good thing since only some endonucleases are restriction enzymes; others, such the given UvrABC example, are not. -R. S. Shaw 06:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

INTRO THANKS -- What makes a good article opener[edit]

My thanks for a truly excellent opening. Several key concepts are mentioned. Each is related in turn to the previous operation/change/fact. The relation is logical and answers questions a curious reader might have. If the reader is thinking, "And then, what?" or "So what, and why does **that** matter?" then the reader will find that the answers flow naturally in the next statement. No vanity, no showing off that we all know there are exceptions to general assertions, just the basics first. Relating one basic concept to another -- even if it takes you beyond the definition of the encyclopedia entry-point -- provides the synthesis and the overview that beginning readers lament the lack of in other science articles, articles that unfortunately plunge too quickly to the contentious, detail-laden forefront of any research area. These concepts that provide synthesis and overview, that answer the beginner's "So what, what next?" concerns, may each have their own Wikipedia page, but that does not mean the concept's relationship cannot be mentioned here. Rather, it confirms the importance of reaching out to tie in a related idea/consequence/effect. In sum, good job. It is impossible to see at a glance from the edit log who the talented (and humane) major contributors are, so I thank the community.
Jerry-va (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review - Section 81F[edit]

Group 81A,

I wanted to take a second and offer some suggestions for your article.

  • First, there are some grammatical errors in the section "Functions of the three different categories of endonucleases - Type I, II, and III. In the 4th sentence, there's a misspelling of "endonucleases" and one for "nucleic acids." In the sentence discussing Type II endonucleases, the sentence structure is improper containing three different thoughts that should be separated by periods, not commas.
  • Second, the discussion pertaining to restrictive endonucleases is somewhat confusing. They're described as a "class" of endonucleases, but are there other classes? Also, are the "Types" mentioned related only to restrictive endonucleases?
  • Third, and this relates some to the second(above) suggestion, the organization of the section can be more "user friendly." For example, "Functions of the three different categories of endonucleases - Type I, II, and III" can be simplified since it's a section heading. Maybe something like "Categories of Endonucleases" for a heading and Type I, II, III as subheadings under that? In any event, leaving the heading as-is doesn't coincide with the discussion, which suggests the types are "restrictive" endonucleases, not endonucleases in general.
  • Fourth, there are organizational issues with the "Common Endonucleases" section that may be better addressed by a table/chart somewhat similar to what's found at the bottom of the page. A chart that has the name, where it's found, others related to it, etc. would be better suited for this type of information.
  • Lastly, the reference added, Principles of Biochemistry, is improperly cited. References should be used after the sentence(s) containing information derived from the reference. That way, the reference is assigned the proper number and isn't listed incorrectly away from the other references.
  • I just want to add that I understand that this is an undertaking that requires a lot of attention. Keep working on it, and make the best of the time you have to work on it.Uplifted1 (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Group 81F,
Thanks for your feedback and all your points have been well taken. I have made some editing on the contents that I added per your feedback. We will be adding some more contents as we go along. Please continue to review the article as usual and address anything that is incorrect. Thanks. Dgambrah (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Final week mini-review[edit]

Hi, guys. Here's a final-week mini-review of your page. It is just a few random notes, that I jotted down while skimming the page, and is not intended as a comprehensive review.

  • Second sentence: what is a "restriction site"? Why are you talking about it? Terms should be introduced before they are used.
  • Similarly, you start to talk about "restriction endonucleases" without mentioning what that means. Are they the same as "endonucleases", or are they a subset? I see that you introduce the term under "Categories of Endonucleases", but I think you really should introduce every new term before you use it.
  • In fact, I think this is a major problem with this article: what is the difference between an endonuclease and a restriction endonuclease? If they are the same, why are there two Wikipedia articles for them? If they are different, you need to explain the differences somewhere. Presumably, this would be under "Categories": you could describe endonucleases that are not restriction endonucleases.
  • Some figures would be nice. Please see some suggestions here, under "Figures and Images".
  • A few more terms in the intro, e.g. "DNA ligase", "recombinant DNA", could be linked.
  • Resolve any "citation needed"s.
  • I don't understand what this sentence means, "A given sample of DNA is likely to contain a recognition sequence for any restriction endonuclease."
  • This article is too short.
  • The section "Categories of endonucleases" is disorganized. There's a lot of material there that has nothing to do with categories. There is some duplication of content (e.g. in the first paragraph, " there are three categories of restriction endonucleases ", and in the third, "Restriction endonucleases come in several types.")

Klortho (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)