User talk:QuantumProtein/Cyclic guanosine monophosphate

First Round of Peer Reviews

Peer Review 1

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

Intro

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

Length

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

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!

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

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

Apology

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

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

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

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!

Innertuber40 (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

First Round of Peer Reviews

Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on condensing and focusing more on the topic rather than diving deep into other topics and citing the sources officially through the wiki feature rather than posting the links.

QuantumProtein (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Heya! Hope this review can still be of some help! I really like the changes you made! It is so much tighter and streamlined now! I really like the image you chose to include alongside your ball and stick model too!

One thing I noticed is that when you cut things out of the text, sometimes what remained didn't make a lot of sense anymore. For instance, "were identified as cellular components and potentially involved with cellular regulation." Cellular components of what? Also, "progress spread in the effects of" should probably have "understanding of" inserted in there. This happens in a few other places in your article, so definitely read it out loud once before finalizing it!

One thing to note is that for abbreviations, you should always write out the full thing the first time it is seen, then after that just use the abbreviation you put in parentheses the first time. In "Role in MDD," for instance, you reintroduce cGMP and PDE.

There are still a few places where the focus on facts shifts a bit into research. "Potential targets for novel therapies," "may prevent the development of" are both red flag phrases that indicate there is some interpretation creeping into the article.

One thing I appreciate is how your current version sums up the most important points about each relevant cGMP fact, so that nobody reading the page will come away feeling uninformed! I really like this style, and I think you should stick with it for the final product! Innertuber40 (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)