User talk:Bharmahe/sandbox

RNase MRP Peer Review 1

This page needs an introduction that is accessible for non-experts, with some background information on RNases. Perhaps a link could be added to the Wikipedia page on RNases. Furthermore, I think what “MRP” is an abbreviation for should be mentioned in this introductory paragraph. The content in each section justifies its length. In the first section on Mechanism and Mutation Effects, Wikipedia page links for the terms rRNA and 5’UTR can be added. In the third section on Diseases Associated with RNase MRP gene, links to Wikipedia pages on point mutations and dwarfism can be added. In the last section on Other Research and Findings, a link to the Wikipedia page on promoters can be added.

No figure is present in the page. The page needs one additional source, and the page does not have any non-journal sources.

The page does a good job explaining the differences between RNase P and RNase MRP. The second sentence in the Diseases section should say “produce” not “produced.” It might be more organized if information about OS and KD were in a new paragraph. The page describes examples of diseases and their underlying biology well, making the examples appropriate.

Overall, the page is well organized with clear examples. The role of RNase MRP is thoroughly explained. My suggestions would be to include a short introduction, add the previously mentioned links, and include a figure. Perhaps a figure that gives the audience greater insight into the sequences of RNase MRP would be helpful. It would also be interesting if a figure that shows the similarity in sequences of RNase MRP and RNase P were added and compared.

Arh505 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)arh505

RNase MRP Peer Review 2

There is no introduction about the topic of RNase MRP on the page. To make it more accessible for non-experts, links can be made to the topic of RNases and the process of RNA processing in the introduction. One suggestion is to bring some of the information in 'link to RNAase P' to the introduction to better funnel the information from RNAses in general to the specific RNAse MRP. Also, abbreviation of "MRP" could be explained. The sections generally justify their length, except for the section on 'Research and Findings.' It would be helpful to break the information in that section into the different findings/categories mentioned. There are plenty of links to other Wikipedia pages for further reference. Perhaps, links can also be added for rRNA, Preribosomal RNA, plasmids, etc. in the section on mechanism. The examples are very appropriate. The content is not duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia.

Although a figure is mentioned in the beginning, there is no image to be seen. The references are not complete; there are only four. To broaden the sources used, inclusion of non-journal source is suggested.

The page fairly well written and organized into important subtopics. The topic of RNase MRP is explained from the mechanism perspective and also its implications on human health. Improvements are needed in terms of making the information more accessible for non-experts. This can simply be done through an introduction and also by breaking the sections into smaller paragraphs that are easier to follow with clear topic sentences.

--Sye455 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Sye455

RNase MRP Peer Review 3

The role of RNase MRP during rRNA processing is explained very clearly in this section, as well as the consequences of mutations within that protein. Continuing with the mutation consequences in the next sections is helpful to understanding the severity of the mutation. A figure in the first section would be helpful to understand the role of RNAse MRP in rRNA processing. Some suggestions of figures include a diagram of how RNase MRP mutants inactivate intermediate numbers during rRNA processing, or a diagram of where and how the protein complex affects the cell cycle.

Comparing and contrasting of both the complexes is done very well. A visual comparison may be helpful in this section, or a paragraph describing one followed by a paragraph describing the other complex.

Breaking up the section about diseases associated with the gene into subsections about each disease would give more space to elaborate on each disease as well as to clarify specifically how RNase MRP mutation leads to that disease. In addition, figures of a couple of the diseases may be beneficial to understanding the severity of dysfunctional RNase MRP gene.

The cartilage-hair hypoplasia could be included in the previous section about diseases associated with RNase MRP. I suggest adding a subsection in the last section about diseases because there is a lot of well-written information about the disease in this section. With this section, consider including findings that clarify more about RNase MRP, as well as research that demonstrates an unknown aspect of the complex. For example, is there a unique characteristic of RNase MRP whose function remains unclear?

Overall, the information on this Wikipedia page is very interesting. It is well-written and clear; knowledge and research of the topic is evident. I think that there are minor organizational problems (indicated above in the comments) with this page that can easily be fixed through editing once all of the information is present.

Ssh514 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RNase MRP Peer Review 4

The Wiki page thoroughly covered the content and the significance of RNase MRP. The use of review articles about RNase P and RNase MRP made it clear about the ribonucleoprotein’s relation to other molecules and also its significance in eukaryotes.

My initial suggestions regard the organization and flow of the wiki page. As other peers have noted, a general introduction will help readers ease into the material and have a clearer framework of what is to come. The currently existing page for RNase MRP is lacking a thorough introduction that this Wiki page could contribute. Leading to the first section, the title could be made more general, such as “Function of RNase MRP,” because ultimately those mutations are defining its function. Also, the technical language exceeds comprehensibility for a general population trying to find a quick understanding of the molecule. For example, in the section describing the role in cell cycle, the language is very similar to what is present in the review article cited. It would be helpful to succinctly describe that the S. cerevisiae RNase MRP was implicated in the cell cycle because mutations lead to a buildup of cyclin B2 levels and then simply cite the article without referring to “further research.”

Furthermore, for the link to RNase P, the content clearly outlines why the molecules are related. However, it is unnecessary to describe explicitly the function of RNase P because this section is linked to its respective page. It would be effective to briefly mention that the two RNases are involved in RNA processing and contain these structural similarities that suggest their evolutionary relation. Again, this section contains extensive technical abbreviations that at times make it confusing.

The content of the “Diseases Associated” covers the subject matter thoroughly with useful definitions describing the etiology and the resulting phenotypes. This section may benefit from separating each disease into its own paragraph, even if they are short. This section may be a useful source for adding more citations. At the moment, the minimum of five citations is not met.

Finally, in making the Wiki page more cohesive, a figure could unite all of the elements and add further significance to the entry (although a figure is mentioned in the introduction, a mechanistic understanding of the processing of RNA, if available, will enhance this page).

Overall, I think the page elucidated the current understanding of RNase MRP and its significance in human biology. The four sections are separated well and all have purpose in developing this understanding of the ribonucleoprotein, but within these paragraphs, it will be helpful to use more succinct language and find wording that is not as technical. Instead of referring to research, explain what the research found and simply cite the source; this will save space and make the description cleaner.

Jcas30 (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions from ChemLibrarian

Good job with the added content. Here are my suggestions.

1. I see that you did not use any of the existing content in the original article RNase MRP. It's not a good practice. Imagine that how you feel if editors come in later remove your contributions completely. So, please do try to incorporate the sentences in the original article into your paragraph, especially keep the reference cited there. The Info Box for Protein on the original article should be kept too. Please talk to me if you don't know how to do it.
2. As pointed out by your peers, you miss a lead section. Please add one based on what's already in the lead section of the original article RNase MRP
3. You have many links to other Wikipedia articles appeared to be red. Some of them showing as red are because they truly don't exist. But some of them are because you did not link it right. For example, "secondary structure" in the Link to RNAse P section. You actually want to link to Protein secondary structure. If you want it to appear as "secondary structure" but link to the right article, you should do [[Protein secondary structure | secondary structure]] . Please go through the article to correct similar issues.
4. Many words in your article has the strange quotation mark with them. They don't seem necessary. Are you trying to make them bold or italic. If so, please use the right syntax as shown in the Help:Cheatsheet.
5. Your section Other Research and Findings may be renamed as Mutations or Relevant Diseases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemLibrarian (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
6. I see that you have not added any images to the article yet. Please check out slide 21 and 37 of the Slides for Wikipedia Editing Basics I posted on the CTools site for link to video tutorials and notices about copyright issues.
7. The references you added are not in the right format. Please watch the two video tutorials linked below and revise your references.

ChemLibrarian (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Review from GSI

The article is well written and informative. However, little changes can improve it in terms of presentation, which will be more acceptable to non-experts.

1. The Mechanism and mutation effect part can be written in a more general way, avoiding technical terms (e.g. Yeast cell instead of S. cerevisiae). Explain terms like, ITS1, CLB2 mRNA, as the wikipedia pages do not exists for these words/phrases. In this context, the group can also use diagrams to show different regions on the rRNA precursors (ITS1, site A3). A schematic flow-chart can also serve the purpose to highlight different steps involving RNAse MRP in the regulation of cell cycle.

2. A comparative study of different diseases associated with RNAse MRP in a table form would make the page more user-friendly and visually interesting.

3. Instead of two different headings as Diseases Associated with RNase MRP Gene and Other Research and Findings, I would suggest the group to make them subsections under the more general and broader section: Diseases associated with RNAse MRP, renaming them as Mutation in RNAse MRP protein and Mutation in RNA in RNAse MRP respectively.

Soumigchem (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)