Talk:U11 spliceosomal RNA

message: Melum 103 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2014

message: 1. In the introductory section, it might help non-experts a lot to add an overall process of splicing that involves U11 RNA. And then zoom in to a more detailed context of minor splicesome protein complex. A simply flow chart could also help a lot.
2. When talking about the secondary structure and binding sites of U11 RNA, it might help to incorporate some visualized information of its interaction with other splicing factors within the complex.
3. Towards the end of Functionality section, the significance of U11 RNA might be put into the introductory part to raise the interests. 
4. It might be interesting to list/link similarly structured non-coding RNAs for references.
J.R. Wang (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic Peer Review 1 J Wang

message: In general your new page is much better than the existing one. You provide more narrative materials and add new sections, which makes the page more readable. The contents look more abundant than the current one. However, there are still some aspects that you may improve with.
The introductory section seems not so accessible to non-expert readers for there some professional words like “alternative splicing mechanism”, “protein complex” and so on, which are also not linked to any wiki pages. I suggest that you add links to these specific items to help readers quickly find more details if they don’t know any of them. The introductory section usually should be a general abstract for the whole page, while here is more like a simple definition of the U11 snRNA. At the beginning of introductory part, you mention that the sn RNA is an important non-coding RNA only providing one reference at the very end of sentence, which is not so cogent. I suggest you add more statements to show how important it is and add some more references so people can find its origins, or at least it will look more persuasive. Also there is a large vacant space in this section, which looks not so consummate. I think it’s the problem of the relative position of the content and picture, or may be the picture’s size. I suggest that you adjust the composing type here to make it more pleasing to the eye.
For the first section, the title as “secondary structure and binding site” is very straightforward and the wording is easy to understand. However it seems to be too simple and short. Also there are some unlinked professional words like “stem-loop”, ”branch-point”, and so on, which maybe not so accessible to average readers. I suggest that more links and explanations would help to understand. Also for the introduction of binding site, it would be more knowledgeable and professional if giving some information about the binding process and mechanism.  
For the function section, it is a very good summary of how the U11 snRNA works in the alternative splicing process. However if there are more descriptions and details about this activating process it would be more substantial. Also I found some more function-like articles for U11 snRNA like “U11 snRNA interacts in vivo with the 5' splice site of U12-dependent (AU-AC) pre-mRNA introns” for which I attached the links in the end. Maybe it would be better to include more functions and behaviors in this section. I also attached some other related papers that I think might be helpful to enrich the content. 
For the reference section, there are two different formats of citations. I am not sure whether they are just replications of each one or they are different citations. It would be more readable if you can make the format more consistent. Also I noticed some of the links are academic papers which may not be accessible for some readers. So maybe replace with open resource would be more suitable for Wikipedia webpage. 
Overall, you did a fabulous job! Your page is very updated, informative and comprehensive than before!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9056760
http://rnajournal.cshlp.org/content/10/6/929.abstract
http://exppc01.uni-muenster.de/expath/articles/U11snRNA.PNAS.04.pdf
http://mcb.asm.org/content/12/3/1276
DocJML (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review from DocJML

message: Hi Melum 103,
Thank you for your addition to this page. Please take into consideration the above comments and alter your page accordingly. The sections are very short and not readable for non-experts. The first sentence of the 'Function' section makes it seem like the the main function is inhibition. Splitting this into two sentences would make this clearer. Introduce the proper function before you talk about mutations. 
With a few edits you could have a excellent page!
Elizabeth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemStudent24601 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: GSI Comments

message: Good structure for the article but you may want to expand each section a bit more as suggested by other reviewers. A few additional suggestions here. 
1. Your reference was not formatted correctly. What I guess happened is that when you added DOI or PMID into the template box, you did not click on the magnifier button on the side of the id so no actual citation information was pulled into the table. Please re-do the references. Besides reviewing the slides I posted on CTools site, you can also watch the videos on the following two pages for how to do this.    
2. Your internal link error of the small nuclear ribonucleic acid can be fixed this way  small nuclear ribonucleic acid. Please add more internal links throughout the text. 
Hope it helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. ChemLibrarian (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions from ChemLibrarian