User talk:Reevesbl/sandbox

Denaturation of Nucleic Acids -Peer Review

The introductory section is very easy to read and gives a non-expert good access to the material. The sections discussing denaturation due to air and chemical agents are very informative and have a lot of good explanations how the biochemistry works. There are many different chemical agents discussed and compared. The figure doesn't really add anything to the text at this point. I would like to see a little bit more detail concerning the hydrogen bonds which are the key to how DNA is denatured. Maybe just showing base pairs in some color and outline the basic hydrogen bonds at work.The top helix is good and then expand on the denaturation bubble with some bases and bonds. The references are very good and show thorough research. I don't think you could find any non-journal sources for something like this. The content is very good but I would include what does DNA stand for(deoxyribonucleic acid) in the introduction. Covalent bonds and hydrogen bonds should have a link to their respective Wikipedia pages. The written information is very good and thorough, it's only the figure which needs some improvement. Kaninus60 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The introduction section is sufficiently accessible for non-experts. Each section is long enough to go into a good amount of depth on the topic without being excessive. Most necessary links are present. One for "hydrogen bonding" and one for "transcription" could be added to help make things a bit easier on the reader. The highlighted examples are good, especially the one about the formamide denaturation. The only glaring issue I see with the content of this edit is that it does not relate to thermodynamics at all. The bulk of this text discusses methods of denaturation other than temperature but the main point of the original page is that "Nucleic acid thermodynamics is the study of how temperature affects the nucleic acid structure of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA)." So while this content is not, as far as I can deduce, duplicative of any other content on wikipedia I would consider it to be misplaced.

The provided figure is helpful in picturing a denaturing bubble. It is however, fairly elementary and doesn't really give an indication of how this bubble is formed or how it interacts in the cell. It is easy to read and accurate though. As far as I can tell it is original and the quality is appropriate for this purpose. References are well in excess of the minimum required and all seem to be from reputable journals and some non-journal websites. Some more diversity of sources could be beneficial as there are currently 10 journals and 1 non-journal source.

Overall the proposed edits are very good. The figure is helpful and the sources are good at providing enough detail without getting too technical. I think the only changes that need to be made are some proofreading and finding a better page for this content as it does not belong on a thermodynamics page. Jkrodg (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Topic Peer Review 1

What most stands out about your page is the fact that it is written in a manner highly appropriate for the Wikipedia community. It is written in a simplistic form that caters to people of all backgrounds. Furthermore, the leads of each section are particularly well written. Each section is introduced well and you all have done a good job at going from a more broad overview of a topic to specific details about it. Something I suggest adding is an introductory paragraph that introduces your overall topic.

Although I think 2 of the 3 sections contain sufficient material to give a decent overview of the topic, I think that the second section could possibly be improved to cover more ground. Furthermore, the first section gives a great overview of the topic but does not go into much detail of the “thermodynamics of the denaturation bubble” topic. So I would suggest to either increase the amount of information specific to this theme or rename the section. While the addition of hyperlinks is fairly well done, I would reread through the article another time to make sure to hyperlink anything that may be beneficial to the reader. Some possible suggestions include hyperlinking “alkaline agents” or “polymerase chain reaction(PCR)”.

The figure proposed in the edit does a good job at explaining what a replication bubble is and helps the reader picture it, but it does not provide any added value that is specifically related to the topic at hand. I would suggest perhaps using a more detailed figure that is specific to the topic. There are several more sources included than the 5 required sources, however, I would suggest that there be more variety in the types of sources used. Lastly, the edits need to be proofread for grammatical and punctuation errors prior to submission.

Nummys01 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Denaturation Peer Review

Denaturation Peer Review

You do a good job on discussing the topic of interest. The introductory section is not present in your sandbox, but your material is fairly accessible to those who aren’t experts in the scope of nucleic acid biochemistry. I’m wondering that is the “Denaturation” part of the current Wikipedia page your introduction (since they cover what Denaturation is)? That section is also fairly accessible to those who aren’t experts in that field. Maybe just make the “denaturation” section mentioned look like a solid introduction (if it is your introduction) to then address what you discussed in your Sandbox. The contents of each section, though, seem to justify its length and explained well. Moreover, the important terms/concepts are linked to their respective Wikipedia pages, helping readers to understand the different concepts. The examples stated are relevant to the topic for explaining purposes and are thus appropriate. The content is not duplicative of content already on Wikipedia. It would be nice to mention the thermodynamics per se of the denaturation bubble as well as taking out the last sentence of the “Thermodynamics of the Denaturation Bubble” section.

There aren’t any figures in the actual Wikipedia site, so definitely adding figures would be helpful as needed, like maybe show a figure of normal DNA and denatured DNA. I found it more helpful to understand when I just read an article on denaturation, although I’ve learned about it before. The figure you included is original and is good quality. It helps the reader understand better and so it is informative and really adds to the text. Moreover, the structure there is accurate, aligned and easy to read/see.

There are a lot of references (much more than 5 references), and so the amount is good. Your references include a non-journal source, which is fine. References should come from all sources.

You guys discussed well in regards to the denaturation bubble and means for denaturation. The content is easy to understand and the discussion amount is good. It would be better to mention the thermodynamics per se of the denaturation bubble as well as taking out the last sentence of the “Thermodynamics of the Denaturation Bubble” section. Also, have an introductory section—maybe just make the “denaturation” section mentioned look like an introduction to then address what you discussed in your Sandbox. Also, if possible, though, try to include a figure on denaturation as explained and maybe include figures wherever it would be beneficial in the actual current site. The figure used works well for explaining and is easy to read/see. The references are sufficient and everything is cited.

Fali1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fali1 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments from the librarians

I'm not certain how the "denaturation" section that you have here relates to the Nucleic acid thermodynamics article that's listed as the historical version on the class spreadsheet. Is this meant to be a separate "denaturation of nucleic acids" article, which will then be linked from the appropriate section of the Nucleic acid thermodynamics section (in the same way that "hybridization" is linked in the preceding section)? This makes intuitive sense, as your rewrite is substantially longer than the existing "hybridization" and "annealing" sections of the main article. If so, then I strongly recommend also linking it from the Denaturation (biochemistry) article, in place of the existing link to Nucleic acid thermodynamics. There's some useful information in the existing "denaturation" section that you would want to include in a more comprehensive main article, such as the alternate term "DNA melting" and the relationship between G/C content and melting temperature for a given sequence. I also recommend that you be much more aggressive in linking the technical terms here to the existing Wikipedia articles on those topics - that's an important community practice to help readers make sense of your article. ScottMLibrary (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

-Thank you.. we updated the google spread sheet to reflect that we are adding onto the denaturation (biochemistry) main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddy1080 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)