Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Cyclol

Cyclol

Hi, I would like to get constructive criticisms and suggestions on how to improve this article in preparation for becoming a featured article candidate. The topic is a little obscure and not much taught these days, but I've provided a lot of original references in the article for cross-checking. Thanks for any help! :) Willow 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wim van Dorst

Copied from Talk:Cyclol, with minor additions to my replies. Willow 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.

Cyclol is linked from most relevant articles at present, such as protein and primary structure. After my additions, it's now linked by nine other mainspace articles. As an obsolete theory of protein structure, it will be found mainly under the "History" section of protein-science articles. It is also relevant for the ergopeptides and, consequently, will become better linked as more such alkaloids are added to Wikipedia.

• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

Added links to all units in the article. It is not customary to write out "Ångstroms" in scientific writing.

• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.

Removed "cyclol" from all section headings.

• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.

Moved "See also" ahead of the References; was there something else?

• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.

I feel that the unity of the subject matter is best served by a single article, especially as an obsolete theory of protein structure. The modern cyclol molecules could perhaps have their own article, but that is only one section of the entire article. The ergopeptides are treated already.

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • correctly
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).

I don't see the weasel words — would you please be more specific?

• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]

As far as I can tell, I did this correctly.

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

The exposition seems reasonably coherent and organized chronologically.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, may I recommend that for a chemical such as cyclol, the infobox to use is the {{chembox}}. Read about it on wikipedia:Chemical infobox. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

A cyclol is a reaction and a family of compounds (like "alcohol" or "ketone") so it seems hard to make the usual chembox. The cyclol fabric and cyclol molecules predicted by Wrinch have not been observed at all, so it would be difficult to give any parameters for them. Similarly, the SMILES format might be hard-pressed to describe a cyclol fabric.

I hope this answers your criticisms; thanks for your help in making the article better! :D Willow 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)