Talk:Aptamer/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will undertake this review. Hope to have comments up in a couple of days. Esculenta (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments: Esculenta (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• why all the citations in the lead? These aren't typically required unless the statement is controversial (likely to get challenged) or is a direct quote, neither of which applies. It's particularly jarring to see a citation for something as obvious as "Aptamers are used in biological lab research and clinical tests."
• don't need to link medicine; on the other hand, it might be helpful to link assay, clinical test, serum
• rather than offering a pronunciation of SELEX in the lead (I'd think they could figure that out themselves), I think it would be more useful to spell out the acronym for the reader
• why the scare quotes around directed evolution, artificial selection, library?
• link library to genomic library?
• This sentence will need citation(s): "Researchers have coined many related labels and brand names, including "Spiegelmer," "SOMAmer," "smart aptamer," "optimer," "X-aptamer," "Raptamer," "aptabody," "affimer," and "peptide aptamer."" as I did not find these names in the next following citation (Joyce 1994)
• probably helpful links: biomarker (in 2nd image caption), directed evolution, cleavage, chromatography, peptide, binding affinity, heavy metal, oncogene, HSF1; influenza A and B can be linked individually, N and C termini, peptide library, derivative, moiety, post-translational modification, epidemiological, biosecurity, drug delivery, drug discovery, monoclonal, dendritic cell, cell receptor
• "used a Qbeta replication system" consider changing link to Bacteriophage Qbeta, as it is slightly more informative (at least those who know what a bacteriophage is will not have to click out to find out what this is)
• who is Gold of the "Gold lab" (first names are given for most other researchers)
• in the section "Industry and Research Community" the external link to Astrea Bioseparations cannot serve as a source; will need a reliable secondary source that mentions these products. Similar, the Apta-index link will need to be made into a proper citation.
• spell out PCR on first usage in text
• second paragraph of Properties/Structure needs citations
• there's four instances of the word conformation/conformational, and none are linked (protein conformation redirects to protein structure); I'm wondering if it might be better to change these to the more readily recognized words structure/structural for simplicity?
• "...such as enhancing DNA polymerase with hot start properties to make PCR more reliable." I was going to ask for an explanation of hot start properties, but I think the sentence is just as good (and easier to parse) with the stricken part gone. (I see that hot start PCR is linked further down)
• spell out ELISA and IHC
• "However, note that phage display" see WP:NOTED
• the advertisers product page for the "Sahara Hot Start PCR Master Mix" cannot be used as a source for this purpose; needs a secondary source that discusses it
• where's the citation for the final 6 sentences of the AptaBid subsection?
• Anti-thrombin aptamers is linked in the main article text, so it shouldn't also appear in "See also"

Hi @AllAmericanBreakfast:, I saw a flurry of editing activity on the article on 16 September, but silence since then. Are you planning to complete this review? About 10 days is the typical time to leave a review open with no reply back, but I'd be happy to extend this if you're planning to work on this more. Let me know, Esculenta (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry about that - I didn't know what kind of timelines are expected. I'm a graduate student and this article is in my field - wrote it over the summer and now the school year has started, so I'm busier than I was. I've made some of the suggested edits, and plan to make the rest of them over time. If you can extend the timeline, I'd appreciate it. Let me know what you think is reasonable; I'll take as much time as you can give me :) 35.0.192.16 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The above comment was mine - I forgot to log in. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article is quite well-written, so once the above is fixed up (especially the citations needed) and I do a few more checks for GA-criteria compliance, it should be ready for promotion. Is about a week enough time? Esculenta (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess not. Review closed for inactivity. Hopefully these notes will help for future GA nominations. Esculenta (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write up your suggestions back in October. I didn't have time to finish incorporating them until today, when the term ended. Hoping the next GA nomination process will be successful. AllAmericanBreakfast (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)