Draft talk:Anticancer gene

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Fall 2020.

MLibrarian Peer-review I like how you expanded on the topic. While you did hyperlink many concepts, some hyperlinks are still missing. It also looks like you are planning a Figure - that would be a great addition! MLibrarian (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew K. Topic Peer Review 1 Overall, you have strong content and an understanding of your topic and provide very detailed examples. This has definitely expanded the page greatly.

Are examples, the only thing you plan on adding to the page? Since the page is very empty, it gives you a lot of creative freedom to expand it. Adding sections such as the history of discovery, general functions, types/classifications, mechanisms of action, clinical focuses, etc... could definitely add to the knowledge presented.

For the HAMLET example, I don't see any references listed. Adding this would be very important to give credibility to that addition.

For the examples, especially TP53, the mechanism described is very complex. I agree with MLibrarian that adding a figure would definitely help clarify your topic and its function. Akohrman22 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ansh C. Peer Review 1 It seems your team has a deep understanding of the several types of anticancer genes and were able to describe their location, structural features, and activation mechanisms effectively. The tone of the material professional and neutral, which makes for an unbiased wikipedia entry.

To elaborate on Andrew's comment, I think your group did a great job elaborating the examples of anticancer genes, but I would recommend providing a more holistic review of relevant material on these genes. For example, you can begin with a history section at the top of your wiki entry. I saw you mentioned Apoptin was the first of these genes to be isolated. There could be information on the scientists responsible, what their methods were that lead to their discovery, and possible application this could provide future scientists. Are there any notable awards linked to anticancer gene research?

Rather than describing at length all the details of TP53, I would recommend summarizing your second paragraph in that section to fewer sentences and hyperlinking to for clarity and consciences. The information provided is great, but it is a lot to digest and the information such as the 5 major regions and TAD domains could be linked elsewhere.

As a last minor comment, I see most paragraphs have references, but not all do. I would recommend having at least one reference at the end of every paragraph even if the material came from the same source as the preceding paragraph to re-establish the source of the material.

The topic overall is quite interesting as there is some relative concepts to our topic on tumor suppression. I think your team is on the right track and I'm excited to see what other material you decide to include. Sonofsu (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Ansh Chaudhari Sonofsu

Navjit G. Topic Peer Review 1 I liked that you fleshed out the examples thoroughly compared to the current page. This way, people will at least be educated on what these anticancer genes are instead of knowing just their names.

For the Hamlet paragraph, I would reference the study talked about instead of referencing back to it as "the study."

For the Apoptin paragraph, I suggest referencing points as you make them. For the point that it was the first anticancer gene to be isolated, this could be easily referenced and it will just make your work safe from any plagiarizing issues. Otherwise, I enjoyed this paragraph. Excited to see the figure that will be added.

The second paragraph in the Par-4 section seems a little disjointed right now. There is a sentence about a possible Par-4 mutation that could lead to disease but seeing that it follows a discussion about the structure of Par-4, I was confused about why the mutation information was relevant in that position. I would recommend finding a picture or making one on Pymol that illustrates the structure of Par-4. This was, this figure can be referenced in the paragraph.

My recommendation for the TP53 section would be to add subheadings to the different paragraphs. This is because this section is quite long and each of the paragraphs has a unique theme attached to it, for example, the first one could have a background subheading.

Overall, I would say this is a great start to completing this wiki article. I enjoyed the in-depth information about each of the different examples. The current paragraphs really expand on topics from the current page. Going forward, I would consider adding information that ties how the different examples could be related or how they are used in different studies or experiments. Information about the background of anticancer genes, in general, would be a good section. This extra information would be general information about anticancer genes in general, and it would be relevant to people who are looking for general information about this topic. Otherwise, great job!

Nsgirgla (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Navjit Girgla

Tim H. Topic Peer Review 1 I really liked how detailed each example of an anticancer gene was given in your edits. It really gave a condensed overview of how each of these anticancer genes really function. I also believe you formatted the contents in your sandbox very well for the edits that you did make and it was really appealing visually.

I do have some suggestions for further reviews however. My peers may have touched on these points as well, but look back at the original anticancer gene Wikipedia page it looks very empty in terms of diverse information. This gives your group a huge opportunity to expand the information on this topic in a broad way. It seems that your group focused on improving the "examples" section only of the page, but I think it is essential to span into other areas. These other areas can include a history section, a commonalities section, an overall function section, an overall mechanism section, and even a chart for visualization of data. This chart can maybe compare the similarities and differences of several known anticancer genes (in terms of how they function or even the diseases that they may cause). I believe adding these additional sections to the anticancer Wikipedia page is essential because I believe they are looking for a broad overview of the topic for users. If readers really wanted to know in-depth about HAMLET or APOPTIN, they could go to their own dedicated Wikipedia pages about those subjects.

Overall, I believe what you have done so far is really great and detailed. If you are looking to make further improvements, I think one avenue you can go through is looking to add more different sections. I hope you all the best! Tvhoang2021 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

AnnaGraceAnders (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)AnnaGraceAnders