Peer Review
Overall the new Wikipedia article on nucleic acid metabolism is much improved. The information added is significantly longer and more in depth without being too scientific and the new figures help illustrate this information. The introduction is accessible, but a little sparse. You may consider adding some information about DNA and other pathways nucleic acids are involved in. In the Purine Synthesis section, the sentence ‘AMP and GMP are then converted into adenine and guanine, respectively’ can go before ‘IMP is then converted to AMP (...)’, so that a better overview of the use of IMP for the production of AMP and GMP is given to the reader. Also, before mentioning the cross-regulation of ATP to GTP a brief sentence on how and why AMP and GMP are further converted to ATP and GTP can be added. In the next section, it seems like a second part of the sentence ‘Thymidine synthesis first requires reduction of the uridine to deoxyuridine’ is missing, a brief overview of the next section could be given to fill the gap. In general, very good job summarizing synthesis of pyrimidines and purines, adding an insight on regulation and giving an example of a disease related to it. The Degradation section could use more details for pyrimidine catabolism, including more specific mechanisms, defects, and use of free pyrimidines to make new nucleotides. Also, the figure in this section mentions intercellular transport, but that is never discussed in the body of the section. There is also a typo in the last sentence of the section on purine catabolism “joints.)”
It may be worth combining the sections on deficiencies and defects into their own section, although it is still easy to follow in the current form.
The figures are very good, but the colors are a little distracting and hard to read in the first two.
Further wikipedia links to be added are xanthine and xanthosine monophosphate.
References are varied and extensive, however an article from a mainstream newsource (perhaps about one of the diseases mentioned) would add more variety. In addition, the references are very representative of the content in the wikipedia page and can be used for further analysis of the pyrimidine salvage pathway. The catabolism of Thymidine can be used as an example in this case for the salvage pathway and to prepare for cell division.
Mbrdgt (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Mbrdgt anapkut (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)anapkut — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrdgt (talk • contribs)
Peer Review by vkapila
Content:
Is the introductory section accessible for non-experts?
I think that you all were able to improve the page greatly. While the original article was extremely short and just provided basic information, you were able to expand with greater detail and also provide in a format that was easy to understand, even for someone who may not be as familiar with all of the topics. A key part of making it more accessible was providing additional background information that is helpful to readers.
Do the contents of each section justify its length?
I think that the contents of each section and subsection have a length that is able to provide a good amount of information without having too much material to try to decipher. I think that it is beneficial to keep the contents to the imperative details and not add in information as simple fillers.
Are all the important terms/concepts linked to their respective Wikipedia pages for further reference?
It appears that all of the important information is adequately linked. This includes the nucleotides such as purines and pyrimidines. It may be helpful to link some of the portions such as ATP and GTP as even though these may be common knowledge to people who have taken courses involving them, the general public may not have this background information. I did notice that ATP is linked, however it is further down the article and it is after other ATP has already been mentioned. In my experience the link is generally placed in the first mention of a topic, so this may be something you may consider. Many of the intermediates and products are linked and this is very helpful to the reader. I am not certain if pages exist for all of the different products that are mentioned such as hypoxanthine, but this may be something you wish to link to provide a way for a reader to quickly learn about it.
Are the highlighted examples appropriate?
The highlighted examples are appropriate and they place emphasis on what the writers feel is important. This includes how nucleotides are composed, the different reactions and interactions during synthesis and degradation, and also the conversions that take place. Additional examples may be helpful for other reactions in order the make them clearer to the average reader.
Is the content duplicative of any other content already on Wikipedia?
As far as I see, I do not notice any duplicative content of other information on Wikipedia, however, much of this information may be found in other articles but that is because the contents and concepts which are discussed are widely applicable. Therefore, I think that it is relatively hard to avoid what may be some overlap with other articles, but the information should still have differences and not be exactly the same.
Figures:
Are the figures original and of high quality?
I do think that the figures are good, however, I cannot tell if they are original or not. I appreciate the use of color in some of the images as it allows for easier differentiation between what is being shown. It also is nicer to look at than a simple chart, which may appeal aesthetically to other readers. As for high quality, there may be some better options or better tools such as PyMOL which is a free software that you may be able to download through the university and this may or may not be a useful tool for you, but it may be something to look into as it is good for visualizations of molecules.
Are the figures informative and add to the text?
I do think that the images do a good job of reflecting what is said in the text and they provide a visual representation which can make it easier to follow or comprehend. Images are often a valuable tool when trying to convey information or helping to teach others. Very good usage of images so far, although you may want to add a few more if you feel there may be other opportunities to do so.
Are the Chemdraw structures chemically accurate, aligned, and easy to read?
If the structures or figures have been made using Chemdraw, they appear to be very even and correctly proportionate. They could be a little bit larger, which would make them easier to read (especially the first figure), however they are perfectly legible as is. You may want to consider a darker background for the color images other than white, it may make them stand out more. Overall, I like the use of the figures and they complement the information well.
References:
Are the references complete (≥ 10)?
There are a good number of references, with a good variety, however the references are not complete according to the directions which say there should be 10 or more. I am sure that you will be adding more, but I just wanted to draw your attention to that in case you forget to do so. The start of 8 references is impressive as there was essentially no information in the previous stub article, nor were there any previous references included except for an individual who may have been the one to provide the stub.
Are the references inclusive of non-journal sources?
The source from Oregon State provides a little bit of variety because it is not a direct journal source. There are several others as well, good mixture.
Overall I think that you have made a vast improvement from the original stub article. I think you did a great job finding sources that have a good variety and you have implemented that data into the wikipedia page very well. I also like your use of diagrams in order to give the reader a good visualization of what you think is important. I think that you can add some more of these and they would be very beneficial to the overall article as a whole. Furthermore, you may want to think of some different forms of diagrams/figures such as 3D imagery which can be produced using software such as PyMOL, which is free. The references are good so far, however, just make sure you reach the target of 10 in order to avoid losing any unnecessary points. Great job breaking down the information regarding the synthesis and degradation of DNA and RNA, however, the introduction could possible use a bit more information. There could be some reordering of ideas in the various sections, as some sentences may fit better in other places. You also want to pay attention to a few typos that exist in the article. The addition of mechanisms can be very helpful and this is also an additional opportunity for more images and figures to be added into the file. Great work as a whole and I look forward to seeing how your final product turns out!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkapila (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)