Talk:Cyclic nucleotide

message: Hi there, I'm a member of the group that will be working on this article for the JHU program.  We've got an initial outline for the flow of the article:
# Chemistry of cNMPs
## structure, what makes it cyclical (this is already present to some extent in the article)
## the basic components of the structure (maybe this goes first?)
# Biochemistry
## synthesis in regards to biological pathways
## locations where cNMPs can generally be found in the cell or certain tissues
# Biology
## examples of biological significance like their role in gated ion channels (there's a lot there!)
## examples of disruptions of cNMP pathways
We are also planning on including some historical milestones as part of the overall narrative.  This will definitely be an evolving structure... Dugalmaguire (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with Dugalmaguire, we have just posted a first draft of a re-write to this article. Please contact either of us via the article Talk page or directly with questions, suggestions, or concerns regarding improvements to this article. Thanks in advance for your help. Davidwhanks (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Update by JHU program

message: ===Does the lead section follow Style Guidelines?===
I think this is a fantastic article, very well written and organized, so my comments are limited to one very minor highlight as far as the style guidelines go. The statement "it is varied and in some cases, still tenuous" may be construed as an opinion. To the extent it is true, maybe consider citing to an article that says so.
:Hi Ppelletier, thanks much for pointing us to this sentence. After re-checking the references, you're right that this is a statement of opinion. It's been restructured to remove "tenuous".
===Does the content accurately represent the cited sources?===
Based on a high level review of the citations, I believe there is support for all the main assertions. The technical description appears accurate.
===Is the writing clear, comprehensible, and doesn't use too much jargon?===
The authors have done a good job of keeping the description straight forward, however, I think you would need to feel comfortable with the basics of biochemistry to appreciate the excellent summary of the literature reflected in what has been posted. This is not a criticism, but more of a suggestion, that having a very high level one or two sentence explanation at the beginning may go a long way for a layman.
===Do the contents of each section belong in that section?===
Yes, I think the organization is accurate and straight-forward.
===Are there gaps in the content?===
One of the great things about Wikipedia is that from this framework others will be able to build out more nuanced subject matter. For the improvements made the stub, I think this is an excellent presentation of the fundamentals. I have not specifically identified any gaps.
 
===Is there ambiguity or inaccuracy over sources?===
Not that I have observed. The sources are used consistently and their teachings are straight forwardly associated with the propositions they are cited to support.
===Could the content be structured differently?===
While there are obviously many ways to structure the article, the authors have done a very good job of keeping the organization straight forward while also comprehensive.
===Are there parts of the article that are not clearly explained===
Aside from a one or two sentence overview that makes the topic immediately accessible to a layman, the article clearly explains the most important concepts.
===Is the content within Wikipedia's guidelines===
Yes! Great job so far. Keep up the good work.
Ppelletier (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Ppelletier, I'm glad you've been assigned to our article.  Your comments for the fluorescent tag page were great.  The summary sentences are a good suggestion, and a good direction to go.  thanks! Dugalmaguire (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course! And my compliments again on the quality of the writing and content coverage. This is a really strong post. Ppelletier (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from Ppelletier

message: Yes! Great job so far. Keep up the good work.
Ppelletier (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Ppelletier, I'm glad you've been assigned to our article.  Your comments for the fluorescent tag page were great.  The summary sentences are a good suggestion, and a good direction to go.  thanks! Dugalmaguire (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course! And my compliments again on the quality of the writing and content coverage. This is a really strong post. Ppelletier (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the content within Wikipedia's guidelines

message: Like Jbmontgomery24, I would echo that both of you have started to refine this article with interesting topics, content and structure.  I'm looking forward to more content and frankly learning more along the way.
My comments are related to the sections currently in the article.  I tend to focus more on tone, structure and readability.
Summary Section
*This text could be more succinct - exactly what it is, structure and leave the details to the sections below.  
*Removal of 'our' in this section.  
*Reference to answers.com for definition is okay, but it may be better to have a more scientific reference for the definition.
*I believe the tone of this section could be improved to keep a reader interested
*Reference to the images on the article - how do these relate?  Perhaps create a verbal tie between the two?
Structure Section
* Is there anything novel or interesting about the structure of these molecules?  Any interesting variations or inter species variations?  If I were coming to this article, this would pique my interest.
* Perhaps combine the structure with additional chemical information section?  These seem to be complimentary?
BioChemsitry, Cellular distribution Section
* Suggest linking to the types of eukaryotic cells - like smooth muscle, liver cells, etc. - to content within Wikipedia.  
* Minor spelling/capitalization issue with the word "Many"
* Recommend linking to beta sandwich.  Not sure many readers would know what this is.
* Section varies in assumed reader's knowledge of biochemistry.  Perhaps a basic primer on some of the biochem involved?  
* I really like the table
Biology Section
* Would recommend tying back what the signals are - the first two paragraphs in this section are confusing and don't follow the flow from previous sections.
* I like the biological significance area.  Had you thought about a map of the body to highlight where these areas are?  This could be an interesting hot spot map of regions of the body and cNMPs
I will take some time this week to seek out reference articles to the areas I mentioned above.  Great article, and enjoy working with you to collaborate on its content.
Aaron.aude (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Aaron.aude, you have both given very in depth reviews.  I've started on some of your smaller suggestions, I liked the idea of referencing images in the text.  As both you and Jbmontgomery24 are in agreement of the 'answers.com' reference, that should definitely be a priority.  I've added some more information and an image in response to the biochem section, but it will continue to be a target for improvement.  Thanks. Dugalmaguire (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aaron.aude.  We didn't get a chance to expand on your idea of a highlight map for biological significance.  That's a good idea and I think an area we can really focus on.  Thanks! Dugalmaguire (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from aaron.aude 

message: * Remove "To date" -- it doesn't make any sense here.
* Ligand should link to Ligand (biochemistry), not Ligand.
* Does "the role of cyclic nucleotides in cellular pathways continues to expand", or is it that our knowledge of that role is expanding?
* The lead is very well linked, but you could use more links in the main article body.  For example, Glycogen, Gerty Cori, Carl_Ferdinand_Cori.  Some sections are completely lacking in links, and they would really benefit the article, I think.
* Several of your sections are written as bulletted lists.  This style is somewhat discouraged.  Where appropriate, could you rewrite them as prose?
* In general, a good job!
Klortho (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Klortho, thanks very much for the suggestions. They all make perfect sense and I'll start to work these in today. Davidwhanks (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Hi Klortho, thanks for the 'role' sentence advice, is was awkward. Will continue to make adjustments.  thanks.  Dugalmaguire (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Klortho 

message: I would recommend adding an ‘s’ to “interaction“ at the end of the sentence, “Their biological significance includes a broad range of protein-ligand interaction.”
Because the lead section is so good, the weakness of the final sentence stands out for me. Since understanding always improves with time, the final sentence seems a bit redundant.  I would recommend rephrasing to something like; “Even after 50 years of their initial discovery, interest in cyclic nucleotides still has not abated.”
In the beginning of the structure section, cAMP and cGMP are described.  Since cCMP is important enough to include in the table below it, why not take the opportunity to describe its structure as well.  Or place it in a second sentence and note that it is less well understood or just has a more limited biological role.
Under the “Chemistry of cNMPs” section, you have a subsection titled ‘Additional chemical information’, but the material thereunder appears to be continuous with what is in the subsection above it.  I recommend removing this subsection and just merge the text.  
Overall, this is a very well written and informative article.  There seems to be too much compartmentalization, but perhaps that is because the article is still young and more information will justify all the subsections.  The tables and pictures are fantastic and I would change nothing in that regard.Jakodak (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jakodak for the input.  That last sentence in the lead section has been a struggle, will definitely look at rewording.  We will also look at what sections can be consolidated. Dugalmaguire (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Jakodak 

message: Do cyclic di-nucleotides like cyclic di-GMP fall under the category of Cyclic nucleotides? If yes, then the first sentence of the article is not accurate. --kupirijo (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclic di-nucleotides?