606:
585:
516:
495:
470:
440:
418:
290:
269:
248:
227:
205:
183:
196:"moonlighting proteins are of particular interest in protein engineering, the study of proteins," Surely the study of proteins is proteomics? I'm not entirely sure that protein engineering and the study of proteins are treated synonymously in this sentence, but if they are not supposed to be then this is unclear.
618:
The two criteria for FAs that are most difficult for articles to meet in general are comprehnsiveness and prose. This is fairly short (there is no length requirement for FAs) but that makes me wonder if it is comprehensive. For example aconitase has three different functions in the table, but this is
342:
I'll try to think of more suggestions when I have time. I haven't done much editing on here for a while so I'm a bit behind on protocol but presumabely just keep reviewing it and then try to get it nominated. This seems to be an interesting topic so I'll keep a watch on the article page for a while.
173:
There are two links that lead to disambiguation pages: moonlighting and cell structure. There does not appear to be an alternate page for either of these. The cell structure page does briefly define cell structure but the moonlighting page appears to be better defined on this page so would suggest
457:
The current lead is only one paragraph and seems like it is not a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is no mention of techniques or mass spec. Please see
431:
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
321:
I have implemented these very good suggestions. Sorry, I am new to this review process. What happens next? I want more suggestions to improve the article and try to go for a good article nomination :)
218:"Some examples of functions of protein..." if this is about moonlighting proteins then that should be mentioned, and if it is about proteins in general then presumabely it is irrelevant.
507:
Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs of
Techniques used to determine function have no refs, and there are citation needed tags in the article too.
629:
126:
76:
661:
Thanks for your very helpful comments. I have made an initial attempt at implementing some of your suggestions and will address the rest as I find time.
122:
628:
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see
386:: Glad to see there are some comments here already. Thanks for your work on this and here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to
107:
640:(which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours,
573:
450:
The relationship of moonlighting proteins to protein engineering has been removed since no reliable source can be found to support this statement.
99:
302:
Of the well documented examples of moonlighting proteins causing disease, there is only one example provided and it is without citation
637:
685:
69:
399:
483:
For the remaining disambiguation link, perhaps link to the wiktionary entry? So the code ] looks like this in the article:
625:
In general for FAs every i has to be dotted and every t crossed, so lots of attention to detail and a copyedit would help
476:
lead has been expanded significantly and all sections of the article are now mentioned in the lead including techniques
50:
528:
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See
632:. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
62:
670:
655:
375:
352:
336:
315:
165:
115:
44:
17:
424:
Per your suggestion, I have added the aconitase figure and I have added an appropriate graphic to the lead.
348:
311:
636:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
448:
We need to add a section protein engineering however since it is mentioned in the lead but no where else.
405:
The article could use some images - I would look at the proteins listed. Aconitase has a decent image at
211:
This statement has been deleted from the article since we cannot find a reliable source to support it.
281:
Junk DNA should probably not be mentioned in such a definitive way as it is a pretty outdated concept
92:
645:
370:
331:
161:
620:
344:
307:
529:
459:
666:
562:
387:
153:
I've listed this article for peer review so eventually it will become a featured article.
395:
641:
362:
323:
157:
605:
584:
533:
515:
494:
469:
439:
417:
289:
268:
247:
226:
204:
182:
679:
406:
484:
662:
409:, for example. It should at least have one image in the lead if at all possible.
446:
The lead has been expanded to provide a more complete summary of the article.
561:
The format of the author names in the citations follows the commonly used
394:
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 26
597:
Or why do some journal abbreviations have periods and others do not?
260:
Active site does not need to be linked to twice on the same line
538:
References that are there are oddly punctuated - shouldn't
630:
Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches
402:, some of which should be good models for this article.
141:
134:
103:
189:
dictionary link provided for moonlighting (see below).
174:removing that link or creating a stub page for it.
70:
8:
150:This peer review discussion has been closed.
77:
63:
32:
572:Spell out abbrviations on first use - so
574:Iron-responsive element-binding protein
35:
7:
638:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/backlog
619:not discussed that I can see. See
24:
604:
583:
514:
493:
468:
438:
416:
288:
267:
246:
225:
203:
181:
400:Category:FA-Class MCB articles
1:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
702:
376:23:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
353:19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
337:18:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
316:00:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
166:11:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
552:Gancedo, C.; Flores, C.L.
546:? Or why not punctuate
239:Should link to evolution
671:05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
656:15:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
686:June 2011 peer reviews
548:Gancedo C, Flores CL
28:Protein moonlighting
384:Ruhrfisch comments
652:
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
693:
650:
608:
587:
563:Vancouver system
518:
497:
472:
442:
420:
373:
368:
365:
334:
329:
326:
292:
271:
250:
229:
207:
185:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
701:
700:
696:
695:
694:
692:
691:
690:
676:
675:
649:
371:
366:
363:
332:
327:
324:
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
699:
697:
689:
688:
678:
677:
674:
673:
646:
634:
633:
626:
623:
615:
614:
613:
612:
599:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
578:
577:
569:
568:
567:
566:
556:
555:
536:
525:
524:
523:
522:
509:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
488:
487:
480:
479:
478:
477:
463:
462:
454:
453:
452:
451:
433:
432:
428:
427:
426:
425:
411:
410:
403:
381:
380:
379:
378:
356:
355:
319:
318:
305:
304:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
283:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
262:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
241:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
220:
219:
215:
214:
213:
212:
198:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
176:
175:
152:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
698:
687:
684:
683:
681:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
654:
653:
643:
639:
631:
627:
624:
622:
617:
616:
611:
607:
603:
602:
601:
600:
596:
595:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
570:
564:
560:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:Jeffery, C.J.
541:
537:
535:
531:
527:
526:
521:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
506:
505:
500:
496:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
481:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
456:
455:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
430:
429:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
408:
407:File:7ACN.jpg
404:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
389:
385:
377:
374:
369:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
330:
317:
313:
309:
306:
301:
300:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
280:
279:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
242:
238:
237:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
221:
217:
216:
210:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
194:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
177:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
163:
159:
154:
151:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
644:
635:
609:
588:
551:
547:
543:
539:
519:
498:
485:moonlighting
473:
447:
443:
421:
383:
382:
345:Italienmoose
320:
308:Italienmoose
293:
272:
251:
230:
208:
186:
155:
149:
148:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
104:visual edit
540:Jeffery CJ
648:<: -->
642:Ruhrfisch
158:Swmmr1928
680:Category
621:WP:WIAFA
156:Thanks,
576:(IREBP)
530:WP:CITE
460:WP:LEAD
367:mmr1928
361:Great
328:mmr1928
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
663:Boghog
396:WP:FAs
388:WP:FAC
647:: -->
610:Fixed
589:Fixed
520:Fixed
499:Fixed
474:Fixed
444:Fixed
422:Fixed
294:Fixed
273:Fixed
252:Fixed
231:Fixed
209:Fixed
187:Fixed
136:Watch
16:<
667:talk
534:WP:V
532:and
372:talk
349:talk
333:talk
312:talk
162:talk
123:edit
100:edit
550:as
542:be
398:in
390:.
682::
669:)
364:Sw
351:)
325:Sw
314:)
164:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
665:(
651:°
565:.
554:?
347:(
310:(
160:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
