User talk:BChung2

Nice work!

The WikiCookie
You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. BChung2 (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BChung2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi BChung2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi BChung2. 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) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Wilzzw (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Boyee.

Long time no see. I'm sure CHM437 is going to be a blast.

Your classmate, Ryder

--Rfwh (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey Friend, I really like your User page Galanyousuf1 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, BChung2, 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) 20:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Dear BChung2: Nice start with the bibliography, especially given the mix up with different enzymes with the same name! You are all set for today. As you start to build and polish, try to minimize narrative. You want to present facts as much as possible, if there is some debate about something still in the literature, you can just mention that without going into the details of each side. That said, the common consensus is that the active site has Ni/Ni, not Ni/Cu or Ni/Zn, I think. You may want to look at few more recent reviews, such as Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 2011, 15:276–283, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 101 (2007) 1657–1666, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1784 (2008) 1873–1898, Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 544 (2014) 142–152, THEJOURNALOFBIOLOGICALCHEMISTRY VOL.284,NO.28,pp.18571–18575,July10,2009. Some of these might be helpful. Have a nice weekend.Dbzam (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hi, I’m not sure if your article is already completely finished, but I thought I just leave a few comments on what you already have:

  • I think your introduction is very good, just one small thing: When you're talking about the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway I’d put the information that it is a convergent pathway in the 'chemistry'-paragraph, I think it's too specific information for the introduction.
  • In my opinion the paragraph about Acetyl-CoA (below the chemical equation of the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway) is not necessary for your article. You could just link 'Acetyl-CoA' to the corresponding wiki-article.
  • In the 'history'-paragraph I would avoid terms like 'In this paper' or 'In a review article', I think this is more essay-style. And I think it is also not common to mention authors’ names in a wiki-article.
  • I would chose a different arrangement of your paragraphs: I think, I’d talk about the structure first and then about the chemistry and the activity.
  • I think your paragraph about the mechanism is very specific, probably this is a little bit too much for a wiki-article, especially when you are talking in detail about the reaction mechanism of the paramagnetic mechanism.

I hope you find my help useful, have a nice weekend! Vogel ant789 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHM437 Peer Review

Hey BChung2,

Excellent work on your article! I feel that you are right on track with content and style.

Just some suggestions:

  • It might be better to include the reactions of the Wood-Ljungdahl Pathway as a line of text:
CO2 + 2H+ +2e– ⇌ CO + H2O

: <big>[[carbon dioxide|CO<sub>2</sub>]] + 2[[Proton#Proton_in_chemistry|H<sup>+</sup>]] +2[[electron|e<sup>–</sup>]] {{eqm}} [[carbon monoxide|CO]] + [[water|H<sub>2</sub>O]]</big>

  • Good news! It looks like appropriate structural images might already be available in the Wikimedia Commons.
  • Some sentences should be reworded so that they are more concise, and have the feel of an encyclopedia article. An example of this is the sentence, "it has been discovered that that the ACS enzyme contains three main subunits," which could simply be written as "The ACS enzyme contains...". You also don't need to capitalize topics & linked words, such as electron paramagnetic resonance, alpha helix, etc.
  • I think that the activity/mechanism section should be incorporated into the chemistry section.
  • It is likely hard to find appropriate book sources, but make sure you do an intense Google Books search to see if you can find any textbook content that is available online, or that you can access in one of UofT's libraries.

Best wishes, Czeer (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]