User talk:Jacmeier/sandbox

Topic Peer Review 1

Content: Switching the order of the Function and Mechanism sections will make the article flow better into Cancer Research. Figures: What kind of figure are you proposing to have? One for the structure would definitely be helpful, maybe one could be added for the mechanism as well. References: Be careful with your citations. Most of your currently selected articles are not open access. At the current stage of your draft, there is mostly an outline so not much can be said about the prose. The additions you are planning to make to this article seem very reasonable for this topic. In the introduction, you may be able to put the other names into the figure like how it is seen for taxonomy and other common named topics. Readers may be overwhelmed by so many acronyms otherwise. Switching the ordering of sections will help to make the article flow better and feel more encompassing of the topic. Since it is early on in the draft, keep in mind what specific topics should be linked to other Wikipedia pages as well as what figures will be helpful. Luttysar (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 1

Thank you for your suggestions! As our initial draft was structured as an outline, your comments were greatly appreciated in helping us to better format the article. We will be updating the article this evening with a nearly final draft and hope you find many of your concerns to have been addressed. Jacmeier (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 2

The figures we thought to add were more general so that readers could understand where the HOXA11-AS1 lncRNA comes from. So we added in pictures from where this lncRNA is from on chromosome 7 and where in the HOX paralog. Furthermore, we added in pictures of cis and trans regulation. Also in regards to sources with open access, after talking to Dr. Walter today with sources, he mentioned that a lot of these sources may be in the process of being PMC Free access. Chdle (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 2

References shall be incorporated in the text with Cite button in the editorMLibrarian (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 2

Thank you for your review. The citations certainly were not properly incorporated as this this post was initially in an outline format. Please see the updated page within the next day to see our incorporation of references and final draft. Jacmeier (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 3

You are proposing to add some great content to the HOXA11-AS Wikipedia page. Make sure when you start actually adding in the content that you cite properly in text and then add a proper citations page through the citations tab on the edit page for your sandbox. Also make sure that you have proper citation format (not just URLs). There is a tool that allows you to automatically insert citations that is very useful on the sandbox editing page.

It may be a good idea to add in a figure or two, including a figure illustrating the actual structure of the lncRNA. If you are comfortable making your own figures it may also be beneficial to make some sort of diagram that shows the function of the HOX RNA as a tumor suppressor.

There is a way to make headings and sub-headings in the style that Wikipedia traditionally uses under the paragraph tab on the sandbox editing page. This will make your article look more consistent with Wikipedia content. Also, don’t forget to link common topics to other Wikipedia pages (also can be done in the sandbox editing page).

As far as content and organization, once you start writing you may find it useful to combine the function and mechanisms headings into one. It seems like there is a lot of overlap between the content under these two headings so far, i.e. the role in tumor suppression is discussed in both sections in a similar way. Additionally, you may want to include information about what happens when there are mutations in the HOX gene or erroneous expression of the RNA (this article may be useful: PMID: 29017417) because this can alter function and may be significantly related to disease. There is a ton of great content that can be added here, as well as in the section that you propose for cancer research. Have you also thought about talking about its relation to the Homeobox? I know you mentioned taking about it as a paralog in the introduction, but it may be useful to include information about the HOX gene family as a whole and provide somewhat of a background on the evolution of this gene family. This is a great way to expand the introduction and link this page to many related genes and other lnc RNAs.

I look forward to seeing this article progress. This is a great topic with a lot of opportunity to add great content! Foleyha (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 3

Thank you for your helpful and detailed review! Our updated article will be including pictures as well as more detail in order to make the information flow better. We hope that our update, that will be posted this evening, addresses many of the suggestions you gave us. Jacmeier (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 4

We figured out how to properly hyperlink and cite! We also found some good picture on Wiki commons. We talked about its relation to the HOX gene and its background! Thank you for the suggestions, they were very helpful. Chdle (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 4

In the introduction part they can expand more in what is HOXA11-AS1 and from where it comes from. Also, talk a little history and discovery of it and where is located.

Include a table talking about the alternative names and what is the difference briefly between each one. They can add a figure explaining the HOX RNA and where is located. Include different previous researches and the importance of this non-coding region.

In Function section: What is the evidence and papers you use to base your discussion?

The part of "HOXA11-AS has a tumor suppression function and thus can be the cause of tumor growth if gene is knocked-out" and the sentence after that should go into the cancer section. Facevedo01 (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 4

Thank you for your review! We have completely re-written our article using the outline we posted and our many reviews in order to create a comprehensive article. Please see the sandbox within the next day for our updates! Jacmeier (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review MLibrarian

Currently I only see an outline of the paper and therefore cannot judge much. In its current view, the article cannot substitute the original Wiki page and it is very important that you actually write the text that will go into each section, start hyperlinking and inserting references. Also consider making a representative graphic.MLibrarian (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Response 5

Thank you for taking the time to review our sandbox for the article. As we were under the impression that this draft was to be in outline form, we did not include the information and references that you have suggested. The page will contain the necessary references and hyperlinks and will be updated this evening. Jacmeier (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nils' Comments

Indeed, please structure your article more, provide a table of contents, add a couple of figures, and really put down words on paper - summarizing current leading-edge research for laymen as you are planning is not trivial, so please move this along with full force now and work as a team! Thanks!

Review Response

Thank you Dr. Walter for your comments! We were under the impression that we were to post an outline summary as our first draft, which is why the information appears as so. We will be adding in our actual, detailed article that we have been editing on a separate shared google document this evening and I hope it is a better illustration of the hard work we have put into this page! Jacmeier (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Gillian's Comments

Your group should be putting more ideas down, as the content is lacking here. To echo what others have said, think about what sub topics you will link with your wikipedia article and structure your entry with the appropriate headings. Also, be sure to include figures and captions, have at least 3 full paragraphs, and at least 5 references in proper format.

Review Response

Thank you for your suggestions Gillian! As we had published this as an outline summary, there clearly are many details lacking. Our actual article and structure that we have worked on will be uploaded this evening. Thank you again for your help! Jacmeier (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)