Talk:Myeloperoxidase

Untitled

The search for biomarkers of joint disease in the horse is the subject of several current research works, so the entrance regarding the assessment of MPO in equine synovia is an important contribution for all scientists working in this field. This is why I do not agree with Jfdwolff when he sais that my contribution is of questionable importance. Anastasios Moschos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasios Moschos (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two issues. Firstly, while assuming good faith I notice you are the main author of your primary source, which indicates a potential WP:COI. Secondly, your contribution doesn't indicate a current practical application of the research you are alluding to. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If the mean activity of MPO is higher in cases of septic arthritis when compared to healthy controls or joints with non-septic diseases (as I put in my statement), then we could use this as a parameter to differentiate these two groups (non-septic / septic). This sounds to me like a practical application and wikipedia may contribute to make clinicians aware of this posibility.

Regarding the conflict of interest, I can understand the goal of your policy. On the other hand your policy cannot by fairly applied, since this only encourages people to adopt pseudonyms to publish their own articles without anyone noticing it. This practically invalidates your COI policy. Once again, honest people are in disadvanage when compared to those who think "a bit in advance" to overcome the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasios Moschos (talk • contribs) 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Anastasios Moschos

Wiki Education assignment: Marine Molecular Science Fall 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 September 2023 and 3 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AdamUsmani (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AdamUsmani (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Here's a not very positive review AdamUsmani:

• I don't see a point in dedicating a section to EC numbers.
• We use sentence case for headings. No "Blah Blah", just "Blah blah".
• The pathway section is good enough.
• The "Structure Effect on Function", "Crystal Structure", and "Active Site" sections should instead been written as additions to the existing Structure section. More words does not mean better.
• I see you feel compelled to write as described before: why not think of ways to structure the article so that it doesn't need these three words?
• to essentially destroy, The way this works is that NOPE.
• ScienceDirect "an overview" is not an acceptable source. It's basically a Google search, except from Elsevier. Would you cite a Google search page?

It bothers me that almost every WikiEd contribution has issues with bad formatting and bad writing (often erring on the side of wordiness). Is something broken with how this thing is taught and assessed?

Artoria2e5 🌉 07:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)