Talk:Clastogen

message: I have merged the independently-made article Clastogenic here. Still needs lots of work. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged Clastogenic to here

message: Most of the article talks about Clastogens in biology, but the latter of the article refers to Clastogenic volcanoes. Anyone agree/disagree? Discuss.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.33.76 (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Have a Disambiguation Page

message: Hello everyone, I am working on improving this article for my class. For my broad goals I hope to include more information and improve the organization. I am working in a group with BrownieLilly. All of our work can be found here in our courses related Sandbox Draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amped4chem/Clastogen?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Amped4chem (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Sandbox 

message: === Clastogen Peer Review ===
The suggestions that you have made in your first draft seem to be on track. I agree that the sections "Telomeres" and "In Rats" should not be their own sections unless you can find a significant way to elaborate on them. I would rename these sections if you choose the latter. I would also consider revising the first section for better flow. I think some of the sentences are run-ons. I do not think it is necessary to mention aneuploidogens beyond the sentence that talks about the bone marrow micro-nucleus test. Perhaps you could link that word to the Wikipedia page on aneuploidy. Take special care not to use an overly scientific writing style. Lastly, a figure could help the information on this page be more digestible to the amateur scientific reader. Good luck with your final draft.
Sobeckal (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2021 

message: The suggestions that you have made in your first draft seem to be on track. I agree that the sections "Telomeres" and "In Rats" should not be their own sections unless you can find a significant way to elaborate on them. I would rename these sections if you choose the latter. I would also consider revising the first section for better flow. I think some of the sentences are run-ons. I do not think it is necessary to mention aneuploidogens beyond the sentence that talks about the bone marrow micro-nucleus test. Perhaps you could link that word to the Wikipedia page on aneuploidy. Take special care not to use an overly scientific writing style. Lastly, a figure could help the information on this page be more digestible to the amateur scientific reader. Good luck with your final draft.
Sobeckal (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clastogen Peer Review 

message: Lead: The lead description of the Clastogen article is robust in that it provides a broad overview of the concept without getting too much into the details. The list of known clastogens is a nice touch in that it provides some real-world context to the otherwise specific scientific concept. The statement on abnormal germ cells in paternal males is also quite helpful to the reader in that it underscores why the topic is important; however, the early discussion on the clastogenic effect may be better explained (the concept is still murky from the phrase it is explained in).   
The proposed edits you’ve included for this section are strong; in particular, the portion on chromosome mutations and carcinogenic processes helps frame the major effect of clastogens for the reader. However, please be careful to not include too much information in this section. 
Impact and DNA: This section can be organized better; the first paragraph goes back and forth between clastogens having a neutral or negative effect, which might confuse the reader as to the extent of the consequences of clastogens. The further examples help display to the reader the nuances of clastogen activity. Graphics and further explanation on the mechanisms, as you’ve alluded to in your edits section, would be quite helpful. The mechanistic science behind clastogens should be presented in a detailed but simplified manner for a general audience to understand – the mechanisms are the underlying foundation of the entire topic.    
Assays: The sentence relating clastogen activity to chromosome aberration activity is incredibly important for this section, and this is a nice theme to follow for the entire article. A similar thread is seen with the comment on micronuclei and the IVMN assay. This section can be expanded and elaborated upon to include more details on the assays, as you’ve alluded to in your edits section. 
In general, there tend to be many run-on sentences in the article, an example of which is the second sentence in the Assays section. 
Telomeres & In Rats: Should these be sections? As you’ve indicated, I’d redistribute the thoughts across the existing sections and create a new applications section to further discuss potential use cases of clastogens. 
Final Recommendation: Overall, the progress is very solid. There is no bias in the framing of the content, and there is enough detail for the reader to understand the concept rather holistically. Further work should be done on additional analysis and structure, as alluded to above. Resources seem diverse and broad. We will apply these thoughts on structure and complementary detail to our own Wikipedia article! Best of luck completing this project, and great start! 
Kvnag1 (talk)Kvnag1, Karthik NagappanKvnag1 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Clastogen Peer Review 2 (Karthik Nagappan)

message: Starting with the content in this Wikipedia article, the introduction section, in its current edited form, does a good job of describing what clastogen is. I do like the proposed edits here to expand on the explanation of what clastogens are, however I’d be sure to keep the language accessible for those who are not familiar with the topic area. In terms of the sections, I do like how you combined the sections. The current unedited page is a bit unorganized, with a weird split on how information is presented. I would recommend (if this is possible) to add figures for the ‘Impact on DNA’ section. For readers, this is probably the most important section to have some supplementary information, in the form of a figure or mechanism visual. It may also be beneficial to add pictures in the ‘Assays’ section. I like the ‘Current Research’ section that was created, as it shows readers how researchers are currently looking at clastogen. Overall, the edited lengths of the sections feels just right, and the information is provided in a manner that allows people outside of this area to understand it. It looks like the terms and concepts that were linked in the pre-edited version are still linked, but there are areas where links to another page could be beneficial to the reader, if possible. These include: DMH (introduction), chromosomal aberrations (Impact on DNA), in vitro micronucleus assay (Assays), micronucleus test (Assays), benzodiazepines (Assays), stilboestrol analogues (Assays), Zeocin (Current Research). In my analysis, it appears that the content in this article is not duplicative of any other content on Wikipedia. At its current edited state, there are no figures present, but I have already recommended areas where it may be appropriate to add them. There are currently 9 references, so I’d be sure to add a few more. It appears though that the references haven’t been edited yet, so this may not be an issue. Of the sources that are present, they are all journal articles, thus there are not any non-journal sources present. 
Overall, I feel that the edits proposed are very well done, and help to organize the Wikipedia page. My main concerns are adding figures to show readers visuals, linking some terms that may be unclear to the reader to the respectable Wikipedia page, and using strong sources to expand on the information in the sections. Good luck in creating the final draft!
Umhumphrej (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Clastogen Peer Review #3

message: Your proposed edits and the feedback provided by your peers are very extensive! I am looking forward to reading the completed article. The Zeocin example could have more information, and it needs some work on the phrasing. 
Cawilhel (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Catherine's feedback

message: Good start!  Lots of useful feedback - Please be sure to link to other Wikipedia articles when you see an opportunity; and I agree a figure with some chemical structures could be informative.
Ngwalter (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Nils Comments

message: A good start! Just a few comments:
1) Try linking the concepts to preexisting Wiki pages, e.g. in Impact and DNA "effects seen can consist of chromosomal rearrangements"
2) Also, try to write simple so that people not in this field could understand. Some sentences are way too complex now.
3) Provide abbreviations to XLF-L115D, ADP, DAP, ATP, etc.. whichever you use for the first time and link them to existing Wiki pages
4) In assays, I would start with a sentence saying why we want to know about the assays, why this information is useful. Possibly move this sentence: "This is useful because an assay that can pick up clastogen activity can be used to foresee chromosome aberration activity" forward or write another general one.
5) In Assays, I would change this sentence, it sounds critical: "But assays are time-consuming so novel methods for monitoring clastogens and aneuploidogens (spindle inhibitors) are highly desirable. Some examples of note include:" to something like: "The most recent alternatives to assays are""  MLibrarian (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: MLibrarian feedback

message: In the final edits we are making and uploading, we have tried to address all of the concerns outlined here in the review of our initial sandbox draft and proposition for the article. Some sections in the sandbox did not make it to the final page, however nearly all of these comments were extremely helpful and relevant. We especially tried to avoid overly scientific language, and to improve the organizational flow of the article. We hope that this will serve to bolster the information already present, and improve accessibility while adding new information and sources. We look forward to further edits and discussion. Amped4chem (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Amped4chem Responses to Peer Review