This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
A paragraph about transcription termination should be added. Any expert around? Jullag 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on a class project for our Molecular Biology Class, our group (81B -user:Birdy0124 and user:Mtee87) came up with this outline+reference list. Please let us know if you want to work with us on this, or if you have suggestions about other subtopic that can be added
I. Making RNA replica of gene [1]
II. Eukaryotic RNA polymerases [2] [3]
IV. Elongation
V. Termination [6]
VI. Transcription through nucleosomes [7]
VII. Eukaryotic transcriptional control [6] [3]
VIII. Comparisons between prokaryotic and eukaryotic transcription [3]
IX. Comparisons to eukaryotic DNA replication [3]
X. Transcription-coupled DNA repair [8]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Hi! I wanted to make a suggestion to the current RNA polymerase table. Instead of having transcribed as indicating positions in the nucleus, I suggest that we change that section to position, add a section called RNA transcribed and go ahead to detail the products as the different RNA's transcribed. Also, I wanted to suggest we add an additional section with functions. This way we can detail functions of each of RNA's transcribed by the different polymerases. Look forward to hearing from you. Mtee87 ( talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Klortho ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Klortho covered a lot of the concerns I had; I will try to add to those comments.
Introduction: The introduction is very confusing right now-- consider starting out broad and narrowing down like you would in an outline. I also don't know what you mean by mosaic, so if you're going to use this term it should be explained. I would suggest giving a more comprehensive overview of the transcription process, in a chronological manner, in the introduction. Keep in mind a lot of people only read the introduction. I think this should evolve bit by bit as you add to the main article- consider checking that the introduction contains all the necessary information whenever you add to the body.
Content and Organization: Your outline seems overly complex. You discuss the molecules needed before explaining the process, which could be confusing to readers. I would even consider getting rid of the sections for the polymerases and incorporating the information into the other sections as necessary. Keep in mind that these also already exist as their own wikipedia pages, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to rewrite what other people have written. Think about linking to the other articles and summarizing the important facts in your text. I'd recommend expanding the initiation, elongation and termination sections with summaries before delving into subtopics. I'm also not sure if transcription-coupled DNA repair is in the scope of this article. You'll have to consider that carefully. It seems too early in the process to comment on what might be missing so we'll save that for later.
Tone: There is a lot of good information in the article so far, but I agree with Klortho that the tone should probably be simplified for the lay reader. I'd say you did a good job maintaining a neutral point of view. But I'd like to hear your voices come through a little bit as you explain.
Citations: I am concerned that there are whole sections missing citations. Perhaps focus on one section at a time instead of trying to fill in a little on each, then you can more easily add citations as you go. Some of the citations seem misplaced. For example, under Eukaryotic transcriptional control, the first sentence is very general and doesn't need a citation. Remember citations are to back up specific facts, not link readers to further information. It's great to start with our textbook, but recall that you should also have freely available articles and books according to the wikipedia mission statement. Try google books!
Metadata: You might want to consider adding some maintenance tags alerting the reader that this is an article in progress. There are also templates that you can insert in the text to mark the section for expansion-- it will look more professional than writing (under construction). I see that you have categories added at the bottom of the page, to give the reader some context.
Sarah Facci ( talk) 02:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Content Coverage
Wikilinking
Referencing
Writing categories
Illustrations
AjoneWiki ( talk) 18:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Igenes ( talk) 03:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your article appears to be coming along quite nicely in terms of information added. The outline looks great and you have a good bit in each section to give the general overview; moreover, the breakdown of the topic is done very well and you cover the topic in its entirety. While you appear to have the basics down-good wikilinking (albeit a bit inconsistent), bits about each topic-for the amount of writing that you have I was expecting more references. If you just wanted to get the basics down that's understandable, but I would focus over the next couple weeks on reinforcing the ideas you've put out there with any research that is available. Next, with such a large topic it is going to be very easy for the reader to get lost without visual aids. There are a lot of proteins mentioned and it would be good to have one picture or chart that helps people keep the topic straight in their head. Small suggestion: I think if you could use a chart for comparison of eukaryotic and prokaryotic transcription that would make the article really stand out.
Other than those thoughts, I think that you have a good article in the making. As long as you keep adding bits of information and attaching more and more references, it will end up great. Dmille96 ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice work since the September 8th update. The page outline has been created and a lot of it has been filled in. There are a few things that I noticed could be improved:
Other than that, just keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oalnafo1 ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, great job so far. Here are my comments for you - please ask on my talk page if you have questions or need help!
All the best, Keilana| Parlez ici 03:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oalnafo1. We are continuing to refine the content (including fixing typos and grammatical errors). We are continuing to integrate more references. This is such a big topic that we have been a bit overwhelmed by the amount of material. But we will try to adjust the "level" of writing during the final stages. Birdy0124 ( talk) 02:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a few comments on the article. It's looking really good!
Rebeccachappel ( talk) 17:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all – You’ve made quite a contribution since the beginning of class. You have really pulled through on getting almost everything cited it looks like. But there are some whole sections (Promoter escape, Global control and epigentic regulation, Gene-specific activation) with no citations that really need at least one. Additionally, I think you mean epigenetic regulation, but it is used as epigentic and epigenic in the article. At this point, not a whole lot I can suggest changing. Your overall structure is coherent, but this is such a big topic, you have to be careful about digging into too much detail rather than just explaining. Some parts are very technically heavy. For example, the “Elongation factors” section is very hard to read and think is above the level of what we are shooting for. I would try to add more wiki links. Things such as “elongation factor” and all the transcription factors (TFIIA, TFIID, etc.) all have pages. It seems to me, in the lead there should be just a little more mention of why this is important. Klortho had mentioned about the “central dogma” of biology. It wouldn’t hurt to include mention of polymerase, the three stages (initiation, elongation, termination) to give a feel of what you cover in the article. I’m left a little wondering what all is in the article when just reading the lead, and there is so much good information you have put in. As others have said, a picture or two would really polish things up. All in all very good work. Seanmcaruthers ( talk) 09:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Birdy0124 ( talk) 17:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I can see that you've put a lot of work into this article, and it is very much improved over the last time I looked at it. Great job! There are still a few more things that could be improved, so here are a couple of comments. Note that this list isn't meant to be exhaustive -- please also, if you have time, revisit Keilana's suggestions above, and those of your classmates, to make sure you've addressed the most pressing concerns.
Again, good job! Klortho ( talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
A paragraph about transcription termination should be added. Any expert around? Jullag 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on a class project for our Molecular Biology Class, our group (81B -user:Birdy0124 and user:Mtee87) came up with this outline+reference list. Please let us know if you want to work with us on this, or if you have suggestions about other subtopic that can be added
I. Making RNA replica of gene [1]
II. Eukaryotic RNA polymerases [2] [3]
IV. Elongation
V. Termination [6]
VI. Transcription through nucleosomes [7]
VII. Eukaryotic transcriptional control [6] [3]
VIII. Comparisons between prokaryotic and eukaryotic transcription [3]
IX. Comparisons to eukaryotic DNA replication [3]
X. Transcription-coupled DNA repair [8]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Hi! I wanted to make a suggestion to the current RNA polymerase table. Instead of having transcribed as indicating positions in the nucleus, I suggest that we change that section to position, add a section called RNA transcribed and go ahead to detail the products as the different RNA's transcribed. Also, I wanted to suggest we add an additional section with functions. This way we can detail functions of each of RNA's transcribed by the different polymerases. Look forward to hearing from you. Mtee87 ( talk) 23:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Klortho ( talk) 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Klortho covered a lot of the concerns I had; I will try to add to those comments.
Introduction: The introduction is very confusing right now-- consider starting out broad and narrowing down like you would in an outline. I also don't know what you mean by mosaic, so if you're going to use this term it should be explained. I would suggest giving a more comprehensive overview of the transcription process, in a chronological manner, in the introduction. Keep in mind a lot of people only read the introduction. I think this should evolve bit by bit as you add to the main article- consider checking that the introduction contains all the necessary information whenever you add to the body.
Content and Organization: Your outline seems overly complex. You discuss the molecules needed before explaining the process, which could be confusing to readers. I would even consider getting rid of the sections for the polymerases and incorporating the information into the other sections as necessary. Keep in mind that these also already exist as their own wikipedia pages, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to rewrite what other people have written. Think about linking to the other articles and summarizing the important facts in your text. I'd recommend expanding the initiation, elongation and termination sections with summaries before delving into subtopics. I'm also not sure if transcription-coupled DNA repair is in the scope of this article. You'll have to consider that carefully. It seems too early in the process to comment on what might be missing so we'll save that for later.
Tone: There is a lot of good information in the article so far, but I agree with Klortho that the tone should probably be simplified for the lay reader. I'd say you did a good job maintaining a neutral point of view. But I'd like to hear your voices come through a little bit as you explain.
Citations: I am concerned that there are whole sections missing citations. Perhaps focus on one section at a time instead of trying to fill in a little on each, then you can more easily add citations as you go. Some of the citations seem misplaced. For example, under Eukaryotic transcriptional control, the first sentence is very general and doesn't need a citation. Remember citations are to back up specific facts, not link readers to further information. It's great to start with our textbook, but recall that you should also have freely available articles and books according to the wikipedia mission statement. Try google books!
Metadata: You might want to consider adding some maintenance tags alerting the reader that this is an article in progress. There are also templates that you can insert in the text to mark the section for expansion-- it will look more professional than writing (under construction). I see that you have categories added at the bottom of the page, to give the reader some context.
Sarah Facci ( talk) 02:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Content Coverage
Wikilinking
Referencing
Writing categories
Illustrations
AjoneWiki ( talk) 18:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Igenes ( talk) 03:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Your article appears to be coming along quite nicely in terms of information added. The outline looks great and you have a good bit in each section to give the general overview; moreover, the breakdown of the topic is done very well and you cover the topic in its entirety. While you appear to have the basics down-good wikilinking (albeit a bit inconsistent), bits about each topic-for the amount of writing that you have I was expecting more references. If you just wanted to get the basics down that's understandable, but I would focus over the next couple weeks on reinforcing the ideas you've put out there with any research that is available. Next, with such a large topic it is going to be very easy for the reader to get lost without visual aids. There are a lot of proteins mentioned and it would be good to have one picture or chart that helps people keep the topic straight in their head. Small suggestion: I think if you could use a chart for comparison of eukaryotic and prokaryotic transcription that would make the article really stand out.
Other than those thoughts, I think that you have a good article in the making. As long as you keep adding bits of information and attaching more and more references, it will end up great. Dmille96 ( talk) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice work since the September 8th update. The page outline has been created and a lot of it has been filled in. There are a few things that I noticed could be improved:
Other than that, just keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oalnafo1 ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, great job so far. Here are my comments for you - please ask on my talk page if you have questions or need help!
All the best, Keilana| Parlez ici 03:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Oalnafo1. We are continuing to refine the content (including fixing typos and grammatical errors). We are continuing to integrate more references. This is such a big topic that we have been a bit overwhelmed by the amount of material. But we will try to adjust the "level" of writing during the final stages. Birdy0124 ( talk) 02:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a few comments on the article. It's looking really good!
Rebeccachappel ( talk) 17:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi all – You’ve made quite a contribution since the beginning of class. You have really pulled through on getting almost everything cited it looks like. But there are some whole sections (Promoter escape, Global control and epigentic regulation, Gene-specific activation) with no citations that really need at least one. Additionally, I think you mean epigenetic regulation, but it is used as epigentic and epigenic in the article. At this point, not a whole lot I can suggest changing. Your overall structure is coherent, but this is such a big topic, you have to be careful about digging into too much detail rather than just explaining. Some parts are very technically heavy. For example, the “Elongation factors” section is very hard to read and think is above the level of what we are shooting for. I would try to add more wiki links. Things such as “elongation factor” and all the transcription factors (TFIIA, TFIID, etc.) all have pages. It seems to me, in the lead there should be just a little more mention of why this is important. Klortho had mentioned about the “central dogma” of biology. It wouldn’t hurt to include mention of polymerase, the three stages (initiation, elongation, termination) to give a feel of what you cover in the article. I’m left a little wondering what all is in the article when just reading the lead, and there is so much good information you have put in. As others have said, a picture or two would really polish things up. All in all very good work. Seanmcaruthers ( talk) 09:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Birdy0124 ( talk) 17:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I can see that you've put a lot of work into this article, and it is very much improved over the last time I looked at it. Great job! There are still a few more things that could be improved, so here are a couple of comments. Note that this list isn't meant to be exhaustive -- please also, if you have time, revisit Keilana's suggestions above, and those of your classmates, to make sure you've addressed the most pressing concerns.
Again, good job! Klortho ( talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)