Talk:Glutamate racemase

message: Summary: This article talks about the properties that make glutamate racemase a moonlighting protein. The protein’s primarily role (bacterial wall synthesis) and minor role (gyrase inhibition) are described in detail. Furthermore, the article shows that both functions are not related and that their active sites seem to be independent. The main points discussed in this article are stated in the abstract which gives the reader from the start a good sense of what is to be expected in terms of content.
Overall it is a well-written, properly structured, and concise article. The information contained in the article was carefully selected, researched, and explained.
Major concerns:
You might need to clarify the fragment “The minor functions of these unique enzymes are called moonlighting functions, in which a protein can have a second function not dependent upon the main function. The two functions of moonlighting proteins are found in a single polypeptide chain” included in the Background section. This makes the reader think that moonlighting proteins can only have two functions (a main function and a minor function). That is the case for Glutamate racemase, but not for all moonlighting proteins (GAPDH has several roles for example).
Minor concerns:
We think you should consider revising your citations’ format. It might be more appropriate to follow Wikipedia’s format for citations which consists of numbers inside brackets [ ] referring to the details of the citation listed at the end of your article. We believe that the method that you used (parenthesis with the article’s author and year) is less efficient in linking the text to its source, and also tends to distract the reader. This is the link that explains how to format the citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources.
It might be helpful to add figures to illustrate some of the concepts and mechanisms described in the article such as bacterial wall synthesis and gyrase inhibition.Saezcab17 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team 10 review 

message: The changes and improvements made to the first draft were noticeable. The second draft is better structured and easier to read.
Overall, the major and minor concerns pointed out in the previous review were addressed. Team 9 made the effort to reformat the citations, revise the style and syntax of the article, and clarify the definition of a moonlighting protein. Also, the second draft contains more links to technical terms already defined on Wikipedia. This contributes to the comprehension and coherence of the topic. The article could be further improved by adding pictures or diagrams to complement and facilitate the understanding of the topic as mentioned in the first review. It would be helpful to include some figures illustrating the following: the structure of the enzyme, display of the active sites, and possibly diagrams showing substrate/active site interactions. (Saezcab17 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team 10 Second Review 

message: Overall, the voice is much more professional, the problems with repetition are clearer, and the organization is much better. However, now that your two articles are merged, it’s hard to tell how much of that work is what you’ve done versus what was already present in the existing glutamate racemase article .While one source was added, more sources are needed to strengthen the article. The original article had 10 sources, so merely adding one or two does not indicate significant research on the part of the project team. They did address the minor concerns that were mentioned. The team did not include a picture of the deproteinization or the conformational changes or superimposition to clarify those processes for the reader. The team expanded on the applications of Murl and made it its own section. The team also took out internal citations. They also did not end the article with a quote anymore, and now has a much better ending with the applications section. The overall article (which was merged with an existing article) is only 1507 words, including headings and charts. The article is well below the minimum word count. The groups additions to the article must have a minimum of 1500 words alone. Since the article was merged our group questions the amount of original work that was put into this article by the team. As a suggestion, the article should be extended thoroughly.  Another suggestion would be to use the citation found in your “further reading” section as another possible source. 
Sportsfan1292 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team 3 Second Review 

message: Several attempts have been made to add pictures to the article; however, this has been difficult, as citing and gaining access to the pictures has been problematic. Pictures have been posted several times only to be taken out due to copyrights and improper citations. Are there any suggestions as to how to incorporate pictures without them being removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.231 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserting images taken from journal articles or books, unless permission is obtained from the publisher, is a copyright violation and is absolutely not permitted.  Your only recourse is to obtain permission from the publisher or create your own original graphics. Boghog (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, editing others comments as you did in this edit is not acceptable (see talk page guidelines) and has been reverted. Boghog (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Team 9 Note