![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Pdholak1 ( talk) 01:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Apoptosis81 ( talk) 01:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think your article is looking good so far, especially since it is kind of a big topic to cover. Your sources are good, the abstracts seem to point toward specific and relevant information. Your writing is clear and concise, though slightly more colloquial than I would use. I like that you used multiple sources for your definition of the word and went so far as to find the first use of the word. I think if your other sections are as carefully done as what you have so far, it will be an excellent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimart1 ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, so I reviewed your first contribution to the article. Good start so far. I will be using the rubric to critique in this peer review:
So far you guys have three main topics: introduction (lead), history, and examples.
Introduction is very well done. It provides a solid definition and briefly gets into function of exoenzymes and where they are found without too much specifics. It is a great summary, which is the exact purpose of the lead paragraph. I see on the talk page that you plan on making a structure/function section; this is where you can get specific. I don’t see any problem content wise about the introduction.
So there is very limited information on the history of exoenzymes. However, it is believed that the first two enoenzymes discovered were pepsin and trypsin. Have you specifically tried searching for the discovery of these two enzymes. Or maybe you could try googling the scientists Briike and Kiihne. If both of these attempts are unsuccessful, I still think it may be worthwhile and relevant to briefly talk these two enzymes.
The examples section is fine the way it is in terms of content coverage.
I added some wikilinks to your article. I want to make sure you agree, so here is a list of what I added: biological processes, cell membrane, digestive system, digestive enzymes, lipoprotein lipase.
The only place (that I can see) where references may have been omitted is in the beginning of the introduction section. There isn’t a reference until the fifth sentence. This may not be incorrect, I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
I wasn’t able to find any spelling, grammar, or typographical errors.
Article flows nicely so far. All information is coherent and relevant. The lead paragraph is great. It serves a great overview; concise, but not too specific.
I took a look at your outline/progress report on the talk page. So far you guy have been following your outline. The only thing you haven’t been doing is updating the status on completed sections/ sections that need more work.
Article has no illustrations, these are definitely needed!
Hi all, I wanted to provide some feedback for your article. You’re doing a wonderful job! Your article thus far is very well written (no misspellings or grammar issues), organized, neutral, and on-topic. Furthermore, the sources that you’ve used are neutral and reflect the article's content appropriately. The preliminary outline gave me a good idea of the progression of the article. I appreciate how the topic of exoenzymes will be introduced very generally but eventually will become quite detailed; having how exoenzymes are used in experimental techniques in your final section is a very elegant touch! Below are some minor changes/suggestions that might improve the article:
As I mentioned, these are all minor things. Overall, the article looks really great. Keep up the good work! Aconch ( talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey everybody! I am just stopping by to give you all some feedback on your article. So far, it looks really, really good! I like the image you picked for the intro section, and I really like the images/diagrams you have thus far. Furthermore, I have to say, having been working on the Transferase article, that the topic of Exoenzymes has got to be tough to find information for. I like the sections you have included thus far, with brief introductions to each category, with some explanation and analysis. Also, your citations look good, most appear to be strongly academic. Here's what I can think of doing off hand:
Name | Purpose | Examples |
---|---|---|
Amylase | TBA | TBA |
Lipase | TBA | lipoprotein lipase |
Pectinase | TBA | TBA |
Otherwise, I think your article is really good and am excited to see how the rest of it progresses! -- WillPugarth ( talk) 01:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As others have said, this is a huge improvement on the original stub. The introduction is informative but streamlined. The history section is a good idea and not one that would be obvious to include. The concept of an exoenzyme appears to be older than I would have assumed so it's great to highlight. The examples section has a broad selection and covers just the right amount for each exoenzyme. It is not an easy topic to cover since exoenzymes are not a class apart according to the enzyme commission classification scheme (though they are all hydrolases/EC 3 if I understand correctly). It's difficult to structure since there are no sub-categories to detail so presenting common examples is a good way to go. A lot of the enzyme articles include EC numbers - maybe add those to the given examples for unique identifiers? I don't think it is necessary but it came to mind.
The applications section is very well-written. You did a fantastic job for such a broad topic. One thing I would love to see is an elaboration on the uses of exoenzymes in terrestrial and marine bioremediation. It was mentioned in the introduction but I didn't see any mention of it in the applications section. I like that the article introduces these different uses in the beginning and then goes into detail in the applications section. Including uses in bioremediation would make for a really interesting addition if you are so inclined. I love the images, especially the one for the generic biodiesel reaction. I do not think any more images are really necessary, though I personally would find reaction schemes for any of the other technical applications (dyes, food extractions) very interesting. It's a great section as it is. The only other thing I can think of that would be neat to see is assays for the presence of exoenzymes in cells (as found here http://academic.pgcc.edu/~kroberts/web/exoenzymes/exoenzymes.htm). Again I think the article is great with the present content, I'm just trying to add something new in the review. The structure and wording works well and you've done a good job wikilinking technical terms. Hnagy2 ( talk) 04:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This article is looking really good. I've been reading it, and looking for some suggestions to give, but for the most part, can't think of any. One thing I noticed is that some sections have a bit too much wikilinking. For example, "paper" and other common words shouldn't be linked. You should also take care not to link the same word too many times in the article. Usually once is enough, unless it's a rare or technical word and it has been a long time since it was first linked, then you could link it again. Great job! Klortho ( talk) 01:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Exoenzyme group! I read your article and found it to be very good! I don't actually have any new suggestions for you all. Here are my critiques:
Overall, I think you guys did a great job on this article! It is very well structured and very pleasing to the eye. Juanquina Thomas ( talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Pdholak1 ( talk) 01:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Apoptosis81 ( talk) 01:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think your article is looking good so far, especially since it is kind of a big topic to cover. Your sources are good, the abstracts seem to point toward specific and relevant information. Your writing is clear and concise, though slightly more colloquial than I would use. I like that you used multiple sources for your definition of the word and went so far as to find the first use of the word. I think if your other sections are as carefully done as what you have so far, it will be an excellent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adimart1 ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, so I reviewed your first contribution to the article. Good start so far. I will be using the rubric to critique in this peer review:
So far you guys have three main topics: introduction (lead), history, and examples.
Introduction is very well done. It provides a solid definition and briefly gets into function of exoenzymes and where they are found without too much specifics. It is a great summary, which is the exact purpose of the lead paragraph. I see on the talk page that you plan on making a structure/function section; this is where you can get specific. I don’t see any problem content wise about the introduction.
So there is very limited information on the history of exoenzymes. However, it is believed that the first two enoenzymes discovered were pepsin and trypsin. Have you specifically tried searching for the discovery of these two enzymes. Or maybe you could try googling the scientists Briike and Kiihne. If both of these attempts are unsuccessful, I still think it may be worthwhile and relevant to briefly talk these two enzymes.
The examples section is fine the way it is in terms of content coverage.
I added some wikilinks to your article. I want to make sure you agree, so here is a list of what I added: biological processes, cell membrane, digestive system, digestive enzymes, lipoprotein lipase.
The only place (that I can see) where references may have been omitted is in the beginning of the introduction section. There isn’t a reference until the fifth sentence. This may not be incorrect, I just wanted to bring it to your attention.
I wasn’t able to find any spelling, grammar, or typographical errors.
Article flows nicely so far. All information is coherent and relevant. The lead paragraph is great. It serves a great overview; concise, but not too specific.
I took a look at your outline/progress report on the talk page. So far you guy have been following your outline. The only thing you haven’t been doing is updating the status on completed sections/ sections that need more work.
Article has no illustrations, these are definitely needed!
Hi all, I wanted to provide some feedback for your article. You’re doing a wonderful job! Your article thus far is very well written (no misspellings or grammar issues), organized, neutral, and on-topic. Furthermore, the sources that you’ve used are neutral and reflect the article's content appropriately. The preliminary outline gave me a good idea of the progression of the article. I appreciate how the topic of exoenzymes will be introduced very generally but eventually will become quite detailed; having how exoenzymes are used in experimental techniques in your final section is a very elegant touch! Below are some minor changes/suggestions that might improve the article:
As I mentioned, these are all minor things. Overall, the article looks really great. Keep up the good work! Aconch ( talk) 22:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey everybody! I am just stopping by to give you all some feedback on your article. So far, it looks really, really good! I like the image you picked for the intro section, and I really like the images/diagrams you have thus far. Furthermore, I have to say, having been working on the Transferase article, that the topic of Exoenzymes has got to be tough to find information for. I like the sections you have included thus far, with brief introductions to each category, with some explanation and analysis. Also, your citations look good, most appear to be strongly academic. Here's what I can think of doing off hand:
Name | Purpose | Examples |
---|---|---|
Amylase | TBA | TBA |
Lipase | TBA | lipoprotein lipase |
Pectinase | TBA | TBA |
Otherwise, I think your article is really good and am excited to see how the rest of it progresses! -- WillPugarth ( talk) 01:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
As others have said, this is a huge improvement on the original stub. The introduction is informative but streamlined. The history section is a good idea and not one that would be obvious to include. The concept of an exoenzyme appears to be older than I would have assumed so it's great to highlight. The examples section has a broad selection and covers just the right amount for each exoenzyme. It is not an easy topic to cover since exoenzymes are not a class apart according to the enzyme commission classification scheme (though they are all hydrolases/EC 3 if I understand correctly). It's difficult to structure since there are no sub-categories to detail so presenting common examples is a good way to go. A lot of the enzyme articles include EC numbers - maybe add those to the given examples for unique identifiers? I don't think it is necessary but it came to mind.
The applications section is very well-written. You did a fantastic job for such a broad topic. One thing I would love to see is an elaboration on the uses of exoenzymes in terrestrial and marine bioremediation. It was mentioned in the introduction but I didn't see any mention of it in the applications section. I like that the article introduces these different uses in the beginning and then goes into detail in the applications section. Including uses in bioremediation would make for a really interesting addition if you are so inclined. I love the images, especially the one for the generic biodiesel reaction. I do not think any more images are really necessary, though I personally would find reaction schemes for any of the other technical applications (dyes, food extractions) very interesting. It's a great section as it is. The only other thing I can think of that would be neat to see is assays for the presence of exoenzymes in cells (as found here http://academic.pgcc.edu/~kroberts/web/exoenzymes/exoenzymes.htm). Again I think the article is great with the present content, I'm just trying to add something new in the review. The structure and wording works well and you've done a good job wikilinking technical terms. Hnagy2 ( talk) 04:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This article is looking really good. I've been reading it, and looking for some suggestions to give, but for the most part, can't think of any. One thing I noticed is that some sections have a bit too much wikilinking. For example, "paper" and other common words shouldn't be linked. You should also take care not to link the same word too many times in the article. Usually once is enough, unless it's a rare or technical word and it has been a long time since it was first linked, then you could link it again. Great job! Klortho ( talk) 01:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Exoenzyme group! I read your article and found it to be very good! I don't actually have any new suggestions for you all. Here are my critiques:
Overall, I think you guys did a great job on this article! It is very well structured and very pleasing to the eye. Juanquina Thomas ( talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)