User talk:ChilinCapybara

Welcome!

Hello, ChilinCapybara, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Good refs

Please student, complete this homework assignment by using WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources: rely on books and reviews for your information. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Carbohydrate synthesis article draft peer review

Lead

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been updated to further explain the oligosaccharide synthesis. The lead is concise and a brief introduction to the articles contents.
• For the sentence "The generation of carbohydrate structures involves linking the glycosyl groups like monosaccharides or oligosaccharides through glyosidic bonds is called glycosylation," I think replacing the word "generation" with "synthesis" would make more sense to the reader. I also think the "(monosaccharides)" in brackets should link to the relevant wikipedia article, and the brackets could be removed to say "called monosaccharides" instead.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? - The added content is relevant to the topic. Rewording of sentences to make it more clear to the reader is done well. The simplified mechanism is nicely done and should supplement the existing scheme well.
• Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the newly added article is new (from 2023).
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The article mostly does not appear to have missing or irrelevant content. Most of the changes made are revisions to existing, relevant information from the article. However, I think the "background" and the "oligosaccharide synthesis" would benefit from more citations to support each claim. I see in the original article that the "background" has 2 citations already, however the "oligosaccharide synthesis" does not have any. In the lead, I think it would be helpful to elaborate on the "natural or unnatural processes," with a brief mention of what these processes are. In the background, it would also be helpful to give examples on the biological processes that oligosaccharides play a role in.

Tone

• Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the added content is neutral. The wording used in this article does not try to persuade the reader to a specific viewpoint.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, the claims made are entirely focused on informing the reader about carbohydrates. There seems to be no unfair bias written in the article.

Sources and References

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - No, not all of the content has been cited. I see that there is a new citation added for the "Lead", however, I think that there should be a few citations made in the "Oligosaccharide synthesis" section. For the "Background", I believe that the citations used in the original article can still be used. Here are some examples of where I think citations would be useful:
  • "Oligosaccharide synthesis normally consists of four parts: preparation of the glycosyl donors, preparation of the glycosyl acceptors with a single unprotected hydroxyl group, the coupling of them, and the deprotection process."
  • "Reducing oligosaccharide synthesis is important since the non-reducing units are no longer activate for the glycosidic linkage."
  • "The essence the oligosaccharide synthesis is connecting the anomeric hydroxyl of the glycosyl donors to the alcoholic hydroxyl groups of the glycosyl acceptors. Protection of the hydroxyl groups of the acceptor with the target alcoholic hydroxyl group unprotected can assure regiochemical control.
  • " Additionally, factors such as the different protecting groups, the solvent, and the glycosylation methods can influence the anomeric configurations."
  • It's okay to combine multiple of these into one citation, but it would be helpful to back up this content with 1 or 2 sources.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes, the newly added source in the Lead does reflect what the textbook is stating about synthesis in carbohydrates. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - I believe the newly added textbook source is broad and encompasses most of the content used in the article.
• Are the sources current? - Yes, you have a source from 2023.
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - Yes, I think adding either peer reviewed articles or more textbook references to support the information under "Oligosaccharide synthesis" would be really good. Articles like this would be helpful.

Organization

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the added content is well-written but with a few minor grammatical errors.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are a few minor grammar issues such as "a oligosaccharide..." should be "an oligosaccharide...", and "play indispensable role..." should be "play an indispensable role..."
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the article is broken down into separate sections. The article flows well by first introducing the topic with the background then emphasizing the details in the "oligosaccharide synthesis" section. Seeing as you are adding a simplified mechanism for glycosylation, it may be helpful to also add a small section about that, but seeing as there is already an existing wiki article you do not need to go in depth or simply not add this at all.

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - The article does include images that outline the synthetic schemes used.
• Are images well-captioned? - No, the images are not well-captioned. The images provided have captions such as "Scheme 4" but there is no actual description that states what information the image is giving. I suggest that small descriptions are added to each figure.

Overall Impressions

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - The revisions to add clarity has improved the quality of the article, and the addition of the mechanism should make the article feel more complete, but I think adding more citations to the information you have edited will really improve the articles quality. A few examples about the biological processes can be added to give the reader a bigger picture about why carbohydrate synthesis is important. I also think the addition of captions to the figures would be helpful for a reader if they were to skim through the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? - The revisions made to the wording and definitions in the lead and background make it far easier for the reader to understand. The added mechanism especially helps in this regard. The writing style and wording made in the edits is also consistent with the target audience in the original article.

Sackboy27 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)