Talk:Microphthalmia-associated transcription factor

message: Hello Arsh and Rasna! Great job on your Wikipedia page on microphthalmia-associated transcription factor. It is a very interesting topic and I enjoyed reading it and learning a bit about what you guys have been working on so far. I will start by pointing out some of the positives about your work. The information was separated well into the three designated paragraphs. The introduction heading can be left out, however, because it is assumed on Wikipedia that the first paragraph is the intro (check out some other Wikipedia pages and you will be able to see what I am talking about). The information that you presented was sufficient, but there are some organizational and grammatical points that I think you should work on in order to improve the clarity of your page. First of all, it seems that you left out a lot of the information from the existing wikipedia page. I think you could greatly enhance your page by integrating the existing charts, target gene section, and the section about the the LysRS-Ap4A-MITF signaling pathway. This will only help to make your page more thorough! Another issue with your page as it stands is the fact that your figure is not working properly. All that I can see is the link for the picture, but it is not physically in the paper and must be redone. This is how you can learn to properly input figures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UploadingImagesHandout.pdf and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AEditing_basics_-_Uploading_and_adding_images.webm . I also think that you could make your caption for your figure a little bit better by labeling it as Figure 1 and referencing the figure in your article. I cannot give a particular example of how I would do this because I cannot see your picture. Furthermore, linking as many words from your article to existing wikipedia pages will only make your article more informative to the reader. For example, you should provide links for "mitosis", "microRNA", and "melanocytes". You can't assume that the reader knows the terms that you are talking about, so it is better to be on the safe side. Content-wise, some of the information is a bit repetitive. The last sentence of the introduction is almost identical to what is said in the final section. You should omit the sentence in the introduction and save the example for later. The introduction of a Wikipedia page is not meant to be a summary of what is to come, but rather a general overview of the basic information about MITF. This information should not be repeated in following sections. There are also few minor grammatical and structural issues as well. First of all, it is unnecessary to have your reference numbers in extra parentheses. The way that Wikipedia does their reference inserts automatically adds brackets i.e. [1] around the numbers. Other than that, your references look great and seem diverse. Also, towards the end of the introduction there is a sentence that starts with "In addition, a more...", and it is a typo and should be fixed. Another typo is when you wrote "It's" instead of "Its" in the second paragraph of the last section. These are just grammatical errors that are easy to fix but can quickly compromise the legitimacy of your page in the eyes of the reader. One final, general comment about your page is that I found it a bit wordy, and the commas were not all grammatically correct. There is not one place that I could point out what I am talking about here because it is persistent throughout the article, but one place that this is evident is at the beginning of the MITF and Melanoma section. For example: "The exact mechanisms of how exactly melanocytes become cancerous are relatively unclear, but there is ongoing research to gain more information about the process. For example, it has been uncovered that the DNA of certain genes is often damaged in melanoma cells, most likely as a result of damage from UV radiation, and in turn increases the likelihood of developing melanoma". Sometimes in Wikipedia articles geared towards the general public, it is easier to understand short, choppy sentences as opposed to longer and wordier sentences. Additionally, I would change and/or elaborate some of your ambiguous phrases such as "minor defects" and "and much more" in order to make your article more professional and detail-oriented. I am well aware of how difficult it is to capture the breadth that is required of a complicated topic such as this while maintaining the simplicity necessary to inform a general audience. I know that I pointed out a lot of areas in need of improvement, but I am truly just trying to help to make your page as informative and useful as possible! Great work on your article and good luck for the rest of the way!
Hschenks (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic Peer Review 1: MITF

message: biological processes under gene ontology in the infobox has a link to "regulation of transcription by RNA polymerase II" but the link text is "duncan kiige". don't think this is right but also don't know how to edit infobox. help 82.3.194.130 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  help