User talk:Bekidl
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Bekidl, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Kaitlin, Jeff and Chris Peer Review: So the first thing we noticed, is that the first paragraph in the mechanisms section that you included on your sandbox but which you did not edit has several grammatical errors that could be corrected. As it stands it is difficult to read. In regards to your contributions in sandbox, we noticed you do not include any information on coupled motions or distal residues potentially playing a role in catalysis (this is what we covered in class, so there are papers and a review on chalk that you could reference), so this is definitely something you could include. Also, maybe include authors by name in the article who made major contributions to the field/the information you are covering. One minor thing we noticed is that toward the end of your second paragraph you ask a question. We think that you should rephrase this to not be a question, as you want to keep the information in your article encyclopedic and not in any way persuasive. Asking a question kind of leads the reader. On a similar note, try to include your references earlier (after first sentence, as the modules told us to do), immediately when you bring up new information. Also, double-check your reference format. There is a way on sandbox to auto-cite where you just fill in a URL for the paper and it gives a very complete citation with links (in regular "edit," not "source edit") that you can use to directly access the paper. Right now your citations do not have that capability, and when the article goes live it is going to need to have this capability. Also we think that the enzyme complex formation described int he last sentence should be a quaternary complex not a ternary complex based upon the information mentioned previously referring to the enzyme as a homotetramer. Also, do you guys have any Pymol images that you want to include that could improve upon the one(s) on the article currently? This is something you could add that would be nice. Also your second paragraph is basically your only paragraph. Maybe you could separate it into two paragraphs instead so its easier to read. Kkentala (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking back, there are a few more points that could help. First, the beginning of the first R67 DHFR paragraph talks about the structure of the protein without giving any reference. Like we said earlier, a PyMol figure or two should make this clearer, but because the structure section is a bit bare bones, it might be worthwhile to expand on the 222 symmetry a bit and the structural difference between E. coli and R67 DHFR and to point out these differences in the PyMol figures.
Starting in the second paragraph under R67, the D27 residue is discussed without much context about its role in catalysis in E. coli DHFR until later. It may be a good idea to discuss its significance earlier to streamline the article.
The information provided is really good, but the organization could use some improvement. Just a quick example, you may want to state the differences between E. coli and R67 DHFR and proceed to the experimental data acquired in separate paragraphs. This really does help make it more digestible for readers.
It may also help to put the names of the authors at the beginning of sentences, or at what aspect they are examining, and to discuss their work and findings/hypotheses. It's probably a good idea to go chronologically because then academic debates can be framed in this context and multiple sides can be given coverage.
Chris, Kaitlyn, and Jeff