Talk:Dicer

message: That picture doesn't look like Dicer... it looks like a crystal structure composed of _four_ dicers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.18.193 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 July 2006
: That's exactly what it was. It's now one dicer. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Hi Everyone, 
As part of a group project for a graduate molecular biology class for Johns Hopkins University, my partner and I will be attempting to improve upon this article. We need to raise it's classification to B or higher. We'll be rewriting the article in a sandbox and then adding the information all at once as opposed to constantly changing the posted article. Here are some thoughts about potential changes. 
- Adding a protein box linking to database information. 
- Include pictures to better explain the mechanism of action. 
- Discuss the catalytic site of the protein and biochemical reactions that occur with sRNA. 
- Add additional functional information in regards to siRNA. 
- Discuss specific roles of dicer in immunity, reproduction, etc. 
- Discuss roles of dicer in a selection of model organisms. 
We're very open to criticism and suggestions, so please tell us what you think. Rmiller587 (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As an amendment to my previous comment...we will be making periodic changes to the article instead of changing it all at once as I previously suggested. Rmiller587 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: The article looks great, so far! 
:The lead section is extremely technical (which, it should be, to some extent), I think you would benefit from decreasing the scientific jargon and definitely including some more wikilinks to assist the readers in understanding.
:The images are all great and well placed, I like that the 3D picture is arranged right next to the FUNCTIONAL DOMAINS (so that I can visualize where the domains are actually located) and the RNA INTERFACE (so that I can visualize where the RNA fits in to produce said interface) sections. Upon a second review, I did have some trouble deciphering all that was going on in the mechanism image, so I suggest getting a larger one.
:I agree that the RISC should have it's own section, the information provided here will provide a more thorough understanding of the role that Dicer plays.
:The references are well cited and well picked, and are cited appropriately.
:The overall tone of the presented information remains neutral throughout the duration of the article, very concise.  The jargon can be quite cumbersome, so I would suggest including more wikilinks in the entire article (especially in the functional domains and RNA interface sections). 
:Expound on how this molecule can be used in cancer treatment, since this subject is of high importance and interest. Klbarnhill (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Katherine! Great suggestions :) The mechanism picture will expand when clicked on. You don't have to look at it in the smaller format. The protein domains picture in the protein box also gets larger. Rmiller587 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You can resize images. See Wikipedia's picture tutorial. Hope that helps! --Jocelyn Munson (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Do you think this size is better? Rmiller587 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do think that this size is better. --Jocelyn Munson (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the size is much better and fits in well with the page! Klbarnhill (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: PEER REVEIW FROM KATHERINE BARNHILL

message: Hey All,
Here are the following contributions we have made in the last two weeks:
* Edited the introduction to be easier for the general public
* Added and reformatted the History section to "Discovery" and added more relevant, scientific information
* Added more detail into RNA interference while elaborating differences between microRNA and siRNA.
* Added a new photo with siRNA and miRNA diagram
* Added a new section called "Viral Pathogenesis"
* Elaborated on "Diagnostic/Therapeutic Tool" section of how injections of siRNA take place.
* Added a few more citations relevant to the new information and data added.
* Took into consideration the remarks made by peer reviewers and changed areas accordingly.
Thanks!
Martinhyou (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article has made some great improvements since I last looked over it. I did notice one small thing. In the "see also" section, RISC links to the "reduced instruction set computing" page. This is the correct link. --Jocelyn Munson (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that! I made the changes accordingly. Martinhyou (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Improvements 4.8.2014 

message: I like the direction in which this article is going. Here are some tips for further improvement:
#Pay attention to punctuation; the first word of the lead should be followed by a comma, "Dicers ability" should read "Dicer's ability", etc.
#Be careful not to squash text between images; either space the images throughout the article or decrease the number of images until there is enough paragraphical text for there to be room.
#Sections should contain more than one paragraph each, and paragraphs should consist of more than one sentence each.
#There should be no unsourced information in the article; paragraphs that do not conclude with a citation thereby leave their concluding sentence unsourced.
#Add more wikilinks; the final section of the body currently has none.
#Be sure to contextualize the information you present. The "Discovery" section provides very interesting background information, but it currently makes no indication of whether Dicer was discovered in the 1800s or in 2014.
#There should be no self-links in the article; a link to Dicer on the Dicer article will cause the word to be bolded when it should not be bolded.
You've been doing a great job in developing this article. I hope you'll contact me if you have any questions about my suggestions. Neelix (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review! We'll be sure to make the changes with punctuation, increasing paragraph lengths, adding citations, and adding more wikilinks for the next contribution. We are covering the overall picture at the moment and will fill in the gaps as the weeks go on. Thanks for the tip with the Dicer part! Didn't know it did that. Martinhyou (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks Neelix! We'll be adding more text and probably not too many more images so the images should be spaced more appropriately soon. As for Dicer's discovery, I cited the original article that named and characterized Dicer. It was published in 2001 so that time should coincide with Dicer's discovery. I'll add in a date though so it's more obvious and a viewer doesn't have to scroll down to find the date. Thanks again for your help! We'll make sure to address all of your points before our next submission date. Rmiller587 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks acb! I agree with all of your comments. We'll be addressing those, by adding more information and explanations of interactions. Thanks for the ideas! Rmiller587 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comment! I think it's a great idea to add some more studies, but I think wikipedia policy asks to not put original experiments if possible. We'll try to add more info though as we go along. Martinhyou (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Neelix 

message: It looks like you've done a lot of work on this article already and I think it is looking pretty good.  
*the interactions section needs to be expanded.  Could you define the interactions with EIF2C2 and TARBP2 further?
*The macular degeneration section could also be expanded more.  What does that sentence mean?
*In the section on "As a diagnostic and therapeutic tool", I think it would sound better if you mention which study showed the result instead of saying "A study showed...".  
Alpha centauri b (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks acb! I agree with all of your comments. We'll be addressing those, by adding more information and explanations of interactions. Thanks for the ideas! Rmiller587 (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comment! I think it's a great idea to add some more studies, but I think wikipedia policy asks to not put original experiments if possible. We'll try to add more info though as we go along. Martinhyou (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Review by Alpha Centauri b

message: Great job! I really like the pictures and tables as well as the placement of the pictures and tables along the right hand side of the article. Additionally, the article is well-organized and easy to read. The lead section is also well-done. Also, great job on wikilinking the more technical terms.
You may want to consider moving some of the text from the "Disease" section under Macular Degeneration and Cancer to Applications section. For example, the initial sentence in the Macular Degeneration section describes the issue of macular degeneration in developed countries. In my view, this sentence implies that you'll start to discuss potential therapeutics within the next paragraph.
Overall, a really nice job though. It was hard to find anything to suggest revising!
--Catwell99 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Cat! For the Macular Degeneration and Cancer section, that may be an idea that we take into consideration as we try to piece it all together by the end. We have been wanting to expand the Applications section more and that's a good idea. Thanks for all the nice comments too! Martinhyou (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Catwell99

message: Hi guys, great job so far. Here are my comments for you as you finish things up - let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything!
* You should go through and do a thorough copyedit, I noticed a few grammar/spelling errors here and there you could take care of.
* In general, we don't put citations in the lead, because theoretically everything in there should be cited and talked about later in the article, since it's meant to be a summary.
* Great job giving relevant, good explanations in your captions.
* Overall great job. I honestly don't have much more to tell you. This is a really detailed, well-sourced article. Nice job!
All the best, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Keilana! We'll go through the article thoroughly and make sure there are no errors. I've been meaning to remove the citations from the lead but I end up overlooking that paragraph. Thanks for picking up on that. I'm glad you liked the article! If you think of anything else, let us know. Rmiller587 (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments, Keilana! We'll be tidying up and making our finishing touches to the article with your review along with the other two. We wanted to make sure all the articles and information was there and we'll probably add a bit more information, and then fix up the article to look nice grammatically and picture-size wise. Martinhyou (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review from Keilana 

message: Here are the final improvements made for this article:
* Fixed multiple grammatical errors related with sentence structure, transitions, and spelling.
* Introduction was restructured and edited to have no citations. Ortholog sentence was placed in the "Discovery" section.
* New paragraph added in Discovery with the relevance of first structure discovery in Giardia and comparison with Human Dicer. Allows for better transitioning between the paragraphs.
* Found newer research that shows the functioning of DUF283 in Human Dicer. Added corrections in the appropriate location.
Martinhyou (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We also added a section about dicer like proteins in plants. Rmiller587 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Improvements 5.5.2014 

message: Just wanted to say that I think you guys did a really good job on this article.  You made my day!  Klortho (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Klortho! Glad we could contribute to the Wiki community and also make your day! Martinhyou (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much! I'm really glad you liked our article. Like Martin said, it was great to have the opportunity to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Rmiller587 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding job!