| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so eventually it will become a featured article.
Thanks, Swmmr1928 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are two links that lead to disambiguation pages: moonlighting and cell structure. There does not appear to be an alternate page for either of these. The cell structure page does briefly define cell structure but the moonlighting page appears to be better defined on this page so would suggest removing that link or creating a stub page for it.
Fixed dictionary link provided for moonlighting (see below).
- "moonlighting proteins are of particular interest in protein engineering, the study of proteins," Surely the study of proteins is proteomics? I'm not entirely sure that protein engineering and the study of proteins are treated synonymously in this sentence, but if they are not supposed to be then this is unclear.
- Fixed This statement has been deleted from the article since we cannot find a reliable source to support it.
- "Some examples of functions of protein..." if this is about moonlighting proteins then that should be mentioned, and if it is about proteins in general then presumabely it is irrelevant.
- Fixed
- Should link to evolution
- Fixed
- Active site does not need to be linked to twice on the same line
- Fixed
- Junk DNA should probably not be mentioned in such a definitive way as it is a pretty outdated concept
- Fixed
- Of the well documented examples of moonlighting proteins causing disease, there is only one example provided and it is without citation
- Italienmoose (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have implemented these very good suggestions. Sorry, I am new to this review process. What happens next? I want more suggestions to improve the article and try to go for a good article nomination :) Swmmr1928 talk 18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to think of more suggestions when I have time. I haven't done much editing on here for a while so I'm a bit behind on protocol but presumabely just keep reviewing it and then try to get it nominated. This seems to be an interesting topic so I'll keep a watch on the article page for a while. Italienmoose (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Glad to see there are some comments here already. Thanks for your work on this and here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to WP:FAC.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 26 WP:FAs in Category:FA-Class MCB articles, some of which should be good models for this article.
- The article could use some images - I would look at the proteins listed. Aconitase has a decent image at File:7ACN.jpg, for example. It should at least have one image in the lead if at all possible.
- Fixed Per your suggestion, I have added the aconitase figure and I have added an appropriate graphic to the lead.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
- Fixed The lead has been expanded to provide a more complete summary of the article.
We need to add a section protein engineering however since it is mentioned in the lead but no where else.The relationship of moonlighting proteins to protein engineering has been removed since no reliable source can be found to support this statement.
- The current lead is only one paragraph and seems like it is not a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of techniques or mass spec. Please see WP:LEAD
- Fixed lead has been expanded significantly and all sections of the article are now mentioned in the lead including techniques
- For the remaining disambiguation link, perhaps link to the wiktionary entry? So the code [[wikt:moonlight#verb|moonlighting]] looks like this in the article: moonlighting
- Fixed
- Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs of Techniques used to determine function have no refs, and there are citation needed tags in the article too.
- Fixed
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- References that are there are oddly punctuated - shouldn't Jeffery CJ be Jeffery, C.J.? Or why not punctuate Gancedo C, Flores CL as Gancedo, C.; Flores, C.L.?
- The format of the author names in the citations follows the commonly used Vancouver system.
- Spell out abbrviations on first use - so Iron-responsive element-binding protein (IREBP)
- Fixed
- Or why do some journal abbreviations have periods and others do not?
- Fixed
- The two criteria for FAs that are most difficult for articles to meet in general are comprehnsiveness and prose. This is fairly short (there is no length requirement for FAs) but that makes me wonder if it is comprehensive. For example aconitase has three different functions in the table, but this is not discussed that I can see. See WP:WIAFA
- In general for FAs every i has to be dotted and every t crossed, so lots of attention to detail and a copyedit would help
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your very helpful comments. I have made an initial attempt at implementing some of your suggestions and will address the rest as I find time. Boghog (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)