Talk:Ribosomal RNA

message: I think that much more information could be provided. Such as distinguishing rRNA for tRNA and mRNA. Also, much explanation is need on how the process of translation works. I know most of this stuff, but am far, FAR to busy with school right now to actually write it for Wikipedia. Just a suggestion
It ought to give some rough sizes of mRNA genes in base-pairs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal (talk • contribs) 01:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need More Input 

message: I think anyone who is interested in expanding this topic could use the template of the tRNA and mRNA pages to make life easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.236.124 (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with tRNA and mRNA 

message: 16S rRNA is used in vertebrate molecular taxonomy. I think it is a non-coding sequence. 16S rRNA peresntly redirects here; can someone check and disambiguate? Dysmorodrepanis 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 16S

message: This article seems to be about the ribosome in general - with only a short paragraph on rRNA! What's with that?! Aaadddaaammm 07:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RNA?!? 

message: Huge section neglected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.133.106 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rRNA processing 

message: Consider rewrite.  Most information is about Ribosome, not rRNA clusters, transcription, export, modification, and processing.  Also snoRNA interaction absent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.133.106 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   -R. S. Shaw 18:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Substituted at 04:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Some rebel scientists claim that the most ancient ribosome form was only protein based, and rRNA evoled afterwards. Well prove it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:CF00:AD8B:1F7C:9D79:8E48 (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  most ancient form 

message: Hi! This is the talk page for the group editing of "Ribosomal RNA" for BIOL/CHEM 455 students Holly Reynolds, Evan Sirls, and Jeffrey Lu. Please leave your comments and peer reviews/feedback here and thank you for reading to make our article progress better! HReynolds2324 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2019 

message: GREAT WORK! I was impressed by your attention to detail as it really feels like this article is thorough. I especially liked the later sections of the article when you describe synthesis and degradation; I thought these sections were your best. As for the earlier sections, I felt like the lead was very wordy and hard to understand. There is a lot of explanation of the expansion segments and types of rRNA that I feel like could be moved to other sections, like structure and function, of the article to help organize things a little better and keep the lead concise. Another I would suggest is maybe cutting out some of the details from the structure and function section. I sometimes got the feeling that I was reading the Wiki article for Ribosome and not Ribosomal RNA because there were many details regarding the ribosome and its relation with tRNA, etc. This would allow the article to focus solely on what makes up the ribosome, rRNA. One last note is to watch the use of language. I noticed one of the sentences in the stricture and function section started with the word "interestingly" and I think that this word gives a very subjective comment on what is being explained instead of staying neutral in tone. Overall, I loved your use of the figures to help explain the topic (except I wish they were a little bigger so that I can see details in the photos); I'm definitely going to work on putting more in my article!
Camarn6 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Ribosomal RNA Peer Review 1

message: Overall the article is a massive improvement over what was there before. I actually think your biggest issue is binding yourself to the style or wording that the article already had in place. This is especially evident in the lead, which needs to be more concise and clear. For example, describing ribosomal proteins as penetrating is... weird. I would just say that the catalytic site is composed entirely of rRNA. Also, the presence of protein structural components doesn't make the ribosome not a ribozyme. If there is an argument about this in the field I would put that in a separate section. As Cam noted above, it would be wise to put a lot of the lead in the actual body of the article. For example, the lead could simply say "rRNA is highly conserved across species and is a widely-accepted tool in evolutionary biology to determine the phylogeny of species." or something like that. Then have a section going into more detail. Finally, there are a couple sentences that say the same or similar things.
In the body of the work, I also think you could probably pair down the function section. Maybe just say what important conserved motifs are present in the catalytic sites and what they do, like the small subunit as the site of tRNA/mRNA interaction and the large subunit as catalyzing peptidyl transfer. Then cite and link to the ribosome or translation articles, which is where a lot of your information should be. Your discussion of rRNA resilience is a little confusing given the statements in the lead, you may want to be more clear about how conserved rRNA sequences are or how important conservation in rRNA is.Lpmiller19 (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: rRNA Peer Review 2 

message: Lead:
The introduction is concise and provides a good definition of rRNA. The first paragraph while true needs some citations, in particular the 80% of cellular RNA and the 60/40 % ribosome composition line.
The second paragraph gets to detailed too quickly. I think in the introduction all you need to do is to establish that there are differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes and that the main difference is that eukaryotic ribsomes are bigger/more complex. Then in the later sections provide a more detailed breakdown between the ribosomes. While it is important to emphasize the details it should also be noted that both prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes are very similar in both function and structure.
By losing some of the detail in the lead it would be a good way to establish the other major sections of the article. 
Overall the lead is well written but it gets too detailed.
Content:
Structure and Function:
Need more citations, especially for any number (i.e. the number of nucleotides).
When you are describing the role rRNA plays in translation you mention the A,P,and E sites without defining them. A stands for aminoacyl, P for peptidyl and E for exit. This also makes a good place to link to other wikipedia articles such as to the articles for each of the binding sites.
Subunit and ribosomal RNA genes:
You did a good job with definitions in this section. The Svedberg units is almost always a point of confusion for people so it nice that you took the time to explain it here.
In Prokaryotes:
You either need to define rDNA or link to an article that does.
In Eukaryotes:
Okay, I see this is where you defined rDNA. I would still link to the article when you first mention it in the prokaryotic section.
Define/link "palindromic sequences"
Also since you are talking about the structure of the ribosome in this section you could mention the 2009 Nobel Prize which was awarded for solving the structure and function of the ribosome.
Synthesis:
In Eukaryotes:
I don't really have any comments here. The information seems up to date and is well cited with good links to other articles.
Eukaryotic Regulation:
Link to the "homeostasis article"
In Prokaryotes:
Get rid of the "Through research" use "In E. coli"
Did all this information really only come from one source? 
Prokaryotic Regulation:
No comments
Degradation:
In Eukaryotes:
I would get rid of the "While there is still that is much to be researched into, researchers have grasped a fairly basic understanding of how cells" line. It seems like editorializing.
In Prokaryotes:
Get rid of the last line "There is still much research to be done to build onto the current observations and further elucidate the mechanism of rRNA degradation in prokaryotes." You already stated this in the beginning of the section so now it is redundant.
Resilience / Importance
No comments on these sections. 
Tone and Balance
Overall the tone and balance of the article are fine. I didn't feel like the authors were trying to sway my opinion in one way or another. 
The random links I tried worked and a cursory glance over the citations seems to indicate that they are relevant to the topic and up to date with the current research.
Organization
I felt the article was well organized and generally well written.
Images
The images were fine. If the authors wanted to add/make an image depicting the life cycle of rRNA that would definitely help readers follow the article.
RNAmonroe (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ribosomal RNA Peer Review 3 

message: I would also suggest that the second paragraph that starts with "Ribosomal RNA organizes into two ribosomal subunits:" shall be moved to The Structure and Function section.MLibrarian (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review MLibrarian

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The redirect 16s gene has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  1234qwer1234qwer4 01:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:16s gene]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]