Talk:Retroviral ribonuclease H

I plan on making changes on this article to start improving it.

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2013

Good job! Here are a few suggestions. The introduction section do not need a sub-title. Please delete it so that the table of content shows up after the introduction session. The image is a little too big. See more about formatting image here Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. As you probably have noticed, is it really necessary to cite a large amount of articles in one sentence, like the last sentence. I am not sure if it's because of the original article but I strongly suggest you change that if possible. Or maybe it just needs more edits to articulate what each article is about. A deeper discussion here is that we are not trying to do a review but an encyclopedia article. So, citing a secondary source like a review article is better than citing a lot of original research articles. ChemLibrarian (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatus501 (talk • contribs)

no thing per se, no enzymatic activity

You cannot associate domains per se with enzymatic activity (=EC numbers). There are always other factors on the whole protein contributing or even enabling enzymatic activity. Synthesize a domain and you probably will not see enzymatic activity. So the EC should be deleted from the infobox, it is on the whole protein where it belongs.

Secondly, a design critique. I know InterPro has "domain" entries but when you look at them, they just look and are used like protein family entries, i.e. of all proteins having that domain. This adds to my previous argument that a domain per se is a helpful concept but not an object of its own worth writing about in WP. Rather make a protein family of it. --SCIdude (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)