Mr. Senfai

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. Senfai, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

jejeni6 feedback

great job on your article, it was a pleasure reading your article. a few points I would like to point out:

• when I was reading about the non-metal containing FDH, I did not fully understand or picture how bipolar form of NAD+ increases the electrophilicity of NAD+. What kind of conformational change causes that increase in electrophilicity?
• maybe a few figures may help? pictures worth a thousand words I guess. :)
• The headings/sections are a little unorganized in my opinion.
• nice job explaining the EPR and XAS data of your enzyme.
• very good writing style. Good flow and choice of words.
• you could probably focus more on the mechanistic explanations of your enzyme; maybe go into more details about each proposed mechanism? figures may be helpful in this case as well.
• overall great article. Learned a lot!

Feedback

Hi Mr. Senfai. Nice work on your draft article. I had a few points on how you might improve things

1. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that it is hypertext. You can always summarise something briefly and link to a more detailed description somewhere else (where it might be referenced from several articles. For example, your section on "Families of enzymes containing Mo and W" might be more appropriate in the DMSO reductase article, where you might create a section on the DSMO reductase family of enzymes, and link to that section from here.
2. We need to treat "future work" in a different way to how research articles treat it. We can't speculate about future work, not in Wikipedia's voice. At best, say "[named source] says that there may be application in [named application]" (or something like that).
3. Section headers shouldn't repeat the article title or a version thereof.

As I said, you've done some really nice work, and these are fairly minor issue. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)