User talk:D.jae.lee

jejeni6 peer review[edit]

nice background information on the isolation of your enzyme.
is the negative charged ligands that gets neutralized by basic residues referring to Glu216?
what does histidine do with regards to its mechanism? maybe a figure would be helpful.
great job in explaining the mechanisitic and active site details.
with regards to the pH profile of xylose isomerase, would the mechanism of action change in any way depending on the pH it is working at? It seems like your enzyme consists of mutiple acid/base residues that are quite susceptible to protonation/deprotonation with slight change in pH. Would that affect the mechanism of action?
Overall, seems like you have a good chemical knowledge about xylose isomerase. Great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejeni6 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review[edit]

Hey user D.jae.lee,

I would consider making some changes to your characterization section. I’m not so certain that stating the names of specific scientists is such a great idea, as they should be included in the reference section for people wanting more information regardless. A possible exception could be if they’re famous in the field for making this specific discovery (i.e. Einstein). Simply saying that current research shows, or something along those lines, should be sufficient and would also give more weights to the fact. Another thing I’d consider changing is to take some focus off of the numbers and hard data in this section, but still conclude the important results. This is more debatable, so use your best discretion.

For your mechanism section, I’d suggest simply writing it out in paragraph format as that’s how Wikipedia tends to favor things.

Try to expand on your Function and Structural studies section, and in the latter case, see if you can get any images that are copyright friendly. Or if not, just describe it succinctly in words.

Finally, for your nomenclature section, there’s not much more you can add to it, so it’s better if you simply remove the heading altogether, and integrate the contents into your introduction. You may be waiting to do this once your site goes live, since integration means editing the current stub article in your sandbox, so please ignore this comment if that is the case.

Besides that, your article is shaping up quite nicely. Cheers!

Mr. Senfai (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-review

Hello! I'd be very happy if you'd be able to critique my current work in progress in my sandbox!

Mr. Senfai (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Wiki User page. If you're interested in multicomponent reactions, have you looked into Prof. Yudin's work at U of T? He's really into that stuff.

BChung2 (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Testing to see whether this works Wilzzw (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for the comments, this is more fun than I thought D.jae.lee (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel, you have a very nice user page! Jejeni6 (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hello D. J. Lee.

Guess who.

--Rfwh (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, D.jae.lee, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

Dear D.jae.jae: Nice start on your bibliography. Don't forget to leave the header on the top of your sandbox: {{User sandbox}} and then on the next line . Also, since there already is a starter page on this topic, you might want to copy the source code and build on that in your sandbox. Have a nice weekend.Dbzam (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHM437 Peer Editing[edit]

Hey there, I think you're off to a good start with your article. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

1. I would start off your intro with "Xylose isomerase is...." instead of "In enzymology....", since most wiki pages I've read begin in that fashion. Also, I feel like it would sound less redundant.

2. I would avoid putting to much technical information and numbers (referring to the characterization section). That type of information could be too specific for a wiki article, and more appropriate for a research article, but I could be wrong.

3. The sentences under "Nomenclature" could be put in your introduction. The first sentence under "Function" could also be included in the introduction since it's pretty general, and you could elaborate later on in the article.

Good luck with the assignment!

BChung2 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism[edit]

Don't need italics in headings.

Maybe include a link to SCOP or CATH classification for the protein fold

Maybe include an inset of the reactions catalyzed

Maybe a bullet points list of substrates.

I'll give you more criticisms later on

Rfwh (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Nice work on your draft article. One note - despite the fact that the original article starts off by saying In enzymology, a xylose isomerase is... there's no need to include the "In enzymology, a.." part. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, xylose isomerase doesn't refer to anything other than the enzyme. So there's no need to clarify that the article is talking about xylose isomerase the enzyme. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]