User talk:Sobeckal/sandbox

Under this draft, we bolstered the application sections of the article – the connection to cancer, sociology, and testing methodologies. Moving forward, we hope to refine these new sections while also generating new content and figures surrounding the biological mechanisms at play. It is important the reader has an understanding of these chemical underpinnings to properly connect with the application sections. This includes DNA adduct formation mechanisms, potential mutations, and adaptations stemming form the DNA adduct formation process.

Topic Peer Review 1

The formatting and content of this draft is very solid. The writing is straightforward and easy to follow, the organization works well, the additions are helpful and engaging. I do have a few minor things that I think could be improved. Not sure if these are all things you've directly worked on but they were things that stuck out to me while reading:

• The third sentence of the lead section is a bit of a run-on sentence, I think it could benefit from some rephrasing. Maybe you could mention the use of DNA adducts and then provide the example?

• The section on biomarkers starts out by reiterating or including discussion I think could fit nicely into the DNA damage section. I think you can simply mention the action of a carcinogen binding and forming a DNA adduct allows

carcinogens to be repurposed for study.

• In the "Adducts due to beef diet" section the last two sentences mention "DNA adducts are a type of DNA damage. DNA damage is considered to be the primary cause of carcinogenesis" and by this point it seems repetitive to have

included this at the end of this section as it has been stated in the lead section and the DNA damage section.

• In "Adducts due to Human Tobacco Use" you mention NNK and NNN, what are those other than known carcinogens? Is it an abbreviation for something? You also mention in this section the "intriguing link between sociology and the life

sciences" and I think that may not be quite neutral enough (I agree it is intriguing but it seems to be a statement of opinion). I think it could be cleared up by simply removing the "intriguing" and mentioning that this experiment linked sociology and the life sciences.

• In the "Testing Methods for DNA Adducts" section the first bullet point cuts off mid-sentence.

I think mostly you all just need some small edits and streamlining, as it is already a great addition to the existing article. Amped4chem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Catherine's feedback

I think it would look nicer if you had a large section called "Causes of DNA Adduct Formation" and listed things like "adducts due to beef" as subsections under that. You could then probably combine the "Examples" section under this, too.

The DNA damage section could use a lot more information. How exactly do adducts lead to mutagenesis? What is the mechanism for that? Also, in the intro you should clarify if adducts are a result of molecules chemically binding to the DNA, or if things like intercalation also count as an adduct.

It looks like you are not done with the Testing for Adducts section. Those could definitely use some more details beneath the different types of testing.

Some of your statements do not include references - please make sure to cite all relevant info!

Cawilhel (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nils comments

Good start. I agree with Catherine that some more structure and explanation of how damage occurs - through chemical bonding or through physical binding that interferes with replication, for example - would help. Please also see whether you can provide more links to other Wikipedia articles.

Ngwalter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MLibrarian comments

Good job on the paper! It is easy to read and understand, which is important. I agree with previous comments and just a few to add:

1) Spell out all abbreviations when mentioned for the first time

2) Link to other Wiki pages, e.g. ELISA has its own Wiki page

3) You may want to keep the second figure that is on the original page

4) The outline may be improved, I agree with Catherine's suggestions

5) Testing methods would be better to number MLibrarian (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Manon's comments

I think you did a good job expanding on the subject, but I feel like all these little paragraph about the causes of adducts can be organized a little better as Catherine suggested. Maybe have a section about the cause of DNA adducts and all those small paragraphs can be sub sections? Also, I think you might be missing a few commas and semi-column here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownieLilly (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)