Talk:Protein catabolism

message: Hello! I was thinking about editing the page so that the overview can stay the same for the most part but adding the necessary sources to ensure its credibility. Then I would begin with how and where the protein catabolism begins and how it even gets into the situation of being broken down, like how the body knows which proteins need to be broken down. Then I was thinking about delving more into the mechanisms of how catabolism works. I already added a bit on how one of the integral portions to protein catabolism would be oxidative deamination. Another example would be the integral part that is transamination and also all of the enzymes that go along with these two procedures. Then I thought, as another user has suggested, we could bring in the energy balance of digesting proteins and how it contributes to the Krebs Cycle and how it compares with the energy required to make proteins. This section could talk about a bit about the comparison of protein catabolism to carbohydrate catabolism. Does that sound like a good idea? Let me know if anyone has any further opinions or suggestions! Tiffanyhu (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello I'm going to suggest some changes to the article that in my opinion could enhance this article on protein catabolism: 
The overview and purpose sections of this article I feel like were well written and encompass briefly what protein catabolism is. As a reader I was curious about the reactions involving transamination, decarboxylation and dehydrogenation so I really liked how transamination had a separate section to further elucidate. Maybe adding two more short sections discussing decarboxylation and dehydrogenation and their roles in protein catabolism could prove helpful. 
I liked how protein catabolism is structured beginning with its steps and that Oxidative deamination has its own section to further clarify. The sentence "The amino group becomes ammonium as it is lost and later becomes urea, which will be released by the liver, where it undergoes the urea cycle, into the blood stream" appears to be a run-on so perhaps some grammatical adjustments could be done here. 
Overall, this article could use more references as it does help make the article more credible. References could be cited right after the sentence containing the information so the reader can know which information was found where, rather than at the end of a paragraph. The pictures where really helpful in understanding the big picture, as well so hopefully as the article improves more clarifying pictures can be added. Hope my input helps this article!
Andrewovak (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: You've got a lot of information in your article, and ordering the sections according to the order of the steps of protein catabolism is a great way to organize it. Your images are also very helpful, and add a lot to the article. There are a few things that could be done to make the article even better, though. First, I think your introduction has a little too much information in it; maybe consider moving some of the extraneous details and examples somewhere else in the article. Second, I agree with the first reviewer: you need more reference sources, possibly some peer-reviewed articles. Even though the sources you already have cover everything you've written, more is always better. You can prove a single point much more effectively if you have multiple sources that back it up. Third, the wording of some of your terminology-heavy portions is somewhat confusing, and I could see it being easy for someone without much prior biochemical knowledge to get lost. This shouldn't be too hard to fix: all the information is there, just try reading it out loud to yourself, or better yet, to one of your friends who's a North Campus major, and reword some sentences to make it all a bit easier to understand. Finally, I'd spend a little bit of time working on the transitions between your subsections. They're in a good, sequential order, so improving the "flow" between them should make your article really stand out. Hopefully this helps you!
Ricech (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviewer #2