User talk:Lcaudrey/sandbox

Do "nomenclature" "reactions" and "activity" all need to have their own sections when they are each one sentence long? Perhaps these can be combined with some other sections or into one general information section to help the article to flow better. The tone is in general encyclopedic; however, avoid statements such as "most interesting" in order to make sure that an opinion is not being presented, just the information. Finally, there could be some more references in the first "background" section. Mgoetz2 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "nomenclature," "reactions," and "activity" do not need their own section. All of them could probably be integrated into the "background" section with relative ease. I also agree that more citations in your background section would be good. You should also add a reference for the "nomenclature" since currently there is not one. It would also be nice to see a citation after, "First, an evident conformational change is observed after the substrate is added to the system. With a substrate-free enzyme the distance between AdoCbl and PLP is about 24 Å and PLP participates in multiple non-covalent interactions with the enzyme with 5,6-LAM presenting an “open” state." as this is formatted as its own paragraph. The tone is generally encyclopedic, but there are some qualifiers ("most interesting") that should be removed (also noted above). Kjesse16 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I would suggest that the "Nomenclature," "Reactions," and "Activity" sections all be combined into a general background section, potentially with some additional details added to "Reactions" and "Activity." The mechanism section would flow better if "Mechanism Research History" were placed first within the section, so that readers can gain insight into how the results presented in "Catalytic Cycle" and "Structure-based Catalysis" were obtained. The reaction schemes should be enlarged, because right now they are not possible to see clearly without clicking on them. It might also be helpful to refer to these figures in the text to clarify when you are referring to them. Is there a reference for "ATP, a mercaptan, and a divalent metal ion (usually Mg2+) are required to achieve the highest catalytic effect" in the "Cofactors" subsection? The syntax of paragraph 4 in "Structure-based catalysis" (contractions, somewhat ambiguous inverted structure in the 1st sentence) stands out from the rest of the article, which is otherwise neutral and encyclopedic. Mlee17 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The article was good overall but there is a lot of jargon involved. For a general audience I think it wouldn't hurt to explain the terms the first time they are mentioned or use simpler descriptions. Since this is a metalloenzyme I think it would be useful to mention the cobalamin and explain how the it makes an Ado radical or how that is transferred to the active site. I think its relatively strange that the chemistry takes place at a remote active site away from the metal center, do you know if this is unique with this enzyme? Finally, the "degradation pathways" image could have a little more details, for example showing where the amine substituents go. Mlk803 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Jared notes=

in addition to the above, this article needs quite a bit of editing for general grammar and punctuation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared Lewis (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)