User talk:QuantumProtein/Cyclic guanosine monophosphate
First Round of Peer Reviews
[edit]Peer Review 1
[edit]Wow! You've done a lot!
For your figure, I would recommend omitting the portion explaining the color code. The stick model follows traditional colors for atoms present, which should be recognizable by most people in the scientific field.
The history portion is very interesting! As is the pathology section. You've included a number of articles in the body, which I'm assuming are sources related to each section that you intend to include and reference.
A very thought out revision. I would almost consider this a finished product! Just needs some polishing here and there.
JyuriOG (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review 2
[edit]Intro
[edit]You had so much in your sandbox, I was convinced for a bit you had copy-pasted! Very impressed with the amount of work you did and the effort you put it; you are clearly well-prepared for the oral presentation.
Critiques
[edit]Length
[edit]One of my comments actually has to do with that length I praised above. Sometimes you include too much detail behind the given mechanism. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia entry, it should not have every protein interaction involved in every function of the molecule. An example of this is the "role in cardiovascular events" section. It reads like a research paper, when it should really be a summary of the key concepts and actors.
Nature of an Article
[edit]That leads to my second point: a Wikipedia article is not a review article. It is not presenting the state of the art, but rather things well-established to be facts. As such, you should try to avoid phrases such as "studies have shown." If you feel the need to defend your point beyond simply linking the source, it may not be considered a fact and is a candidate for reconsideration.
Use Wikipedia Resources!
[edit]In the "Protein Kinase Activation" section, the PKG wikipedia is already linked to. Make sure you are not repeating anything said in that page. More importantly, consider moving some of your edits for the pathway in this article to that page, where the main actor is definitely PKG. This is a principle you can apply to the whole project; if cGMP is not the primary actor, then the information may better belong on a different page. If a page does not exist yet, you can suggest one be created.
Organization
[edit]As my last critique, a word about organization. First of all, make sure all subheadings are capitalized. Secondly, remember to cite your sources using "<ref></ref>" or the Cite tool at the top. Third, sometimes your paragraphs end up dense enough that readability is impacted. Part of this is due to the overexplaining I mentioned earlier, but another issue is simply a lack of breaks. Sometimes, a simple enter press goes a long way. I recognize this is just a first draft, though, so I will not dwell on it too long.
Praise
[edit]Apology
[edit]I am sorry that I frontloaded it with critiques. This is not because the opportunities for improvement were what stood out, but rather because the critiques are far more productive than praise. Plus, your edit is incredibly good, which I think goes without saying.
Model
[edit]Having had the opportunity to actually compare the space-filling model with the ball and stick one, I think you made the right choice in straight up replacing the figure. If you could even get another figure to help liven up your other paragraphs that could be fun, but overall solid pick!
Content
[edit]It goes without saying, but your proposed edit is a significant improvement over the current page. With something so extensive, it may meet some resistance when your first try to publish it, but I think you chose the topics you wanted to include very well. Any interested person would be very grateful they found this page.
Conclusion
[edit]Overall a very solid article that could be submitted for evaluation with just a few revisions. You explain things in your own language very well, and going through your edit history I was impressed with your diligence in revising the language. I could tell there was effort to make the text easier to read for the casual viewer, which is much appreciated.
You got this!