Wikipedia:Peer review/MTORC1/archive1

MTORC1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Flemingrjf (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Biosthmors

Thanks for your work here! I will go through and try to find things I think can be improved.
We have "nutrient/energy/redox" in the first sentence. Wikipedia style discourages the use of slashes like this. Can we reword to present a WP:First sentence and definition with plain prose? (And reword throughout?)
The second sentence uses "mTOR Complex 1 (mTORC1)..." to begin. But the abbreviation is already used in the first sentence (and the title of the article), so we can just simplify this to the abbreviation.
In the second sentence, "recently identified" is said. But Wikipedia avoids terms such as "currently" or "recently" because they are vague. If you feel you should specify a date in a Wikipedia article, you can give the date or say "as of...".
Stating "by functioning as a nutrient/energy/redox sensor and controlling protein synthesis" in the third sentence is repetitive as it is taken from the first. I suggest removing it and stating that the properties of the complex is based off of the properties of mTOR. Though this begs the question: what do the other proteins do? Please summarize at least a half-sentence or so from the WP:Lead about that aspect of the complex, as I assume it is covered in the article.
Per WP:Headings, please make section titles lowercase. For example, Upstream Signalling should become Upstream signalling.
In the Function section,
- TSC1 can be linked, even if it is WP:Red. Red links are good. One can also link TSC2 upon its first occurrence in the article.
- I don't comprehend why "Thus, many of the pathways that influence mTORC1 activation do so through the activation or inactivation of the TSC1/TSC2 heterodimer." logically follows the preceding text. Many pathways weren't discussed, were they?
- The sentence "The active Rheb-GTP activates mTORC1 through unelucidated pathways" should, I think, either be removed or dated with an "as of 2012" because tomorrow it could be elucidated and published. We don't want to write things that can be easily made false with further research. We want to summarize the facts that don't appear to be so time-dependent.
- "TSC2 is a GTP-ase activating protein (GAP). Its GAP activity interacts with the G protein called Rheb by hydrolyzing the GTP of the active Rheb-GTP complex, converting it to the inactive Rheb-GDP complex." seems like it could be copy-edited to read "TSC2 is a GTP-ase activating protein (GAP) that hydrolyzes the GTP of the active G-protein Rheb complex to the inactive Rheb-GDP complex." or something similar. Try to use as few words as possible.
In Amino Acids, I recommend removing the "studies have shown" part. It's how all of this knowledge is generated. =)
- The sentence fragment "Rheb needs to be in its active GTP-bound state" is missing the portion that should says it needs it for what purpose.
In the Wnt pathway section, I'm not sure things are stated well. We have: "The Wnt pathway is responsible for cellular growth and proliferation during organismal development; thus, it could be reasoned that activation of this pathway also activates mTORC1". Is everything in this section something that is published (and not WP:OR)? We don't publish novel ideas. Because later we have "Since the Wnt pathway inhibits GSK3 signaling, the active Wnt pathway is also involved in the mTORC1 pathway." Does the latter sentence I quote contradict the first by stating it as fact whereas the first sentence makes it sound purely theoretical?
Well this is all the time and energy I have for now! Maybe you can use my comments to also help strenghten the text I didn't directly comment on. I hope this review has been helpful. Thank you again for your contributions here. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian's Review

-There are some differences with the bold font for titles of sections and I think they should be fixed.