Wikipedia:Peer review/Adhesion-GPCRs/archive1
Adhesion-GPCRs[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.
Thanks, Flemingrjf (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- From Biosthmors
- Thanks for all your contributions here! My job is to try and find things that can be improved.
- Right now, the WP:Lead is very long compared to the article. Everything in the lead should be stated later in the body of the article. So nothing should only be said in the lead. Can we move some (a lot) of that content below, into the body of the article, perhaps? We could have a "Background" section.
- The WP:First sentence should concisely define the subject, if the subject is definable. I think it can be defined. Currently it reads: "GPCRs represent the largest superfamily of receptors in the human genome". I understand this text is trying to give background, but we could create a background section for this sort of content to go to, in the body of the article, for readers who want more background context. I'd probably start off with "Adhesion G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are..." because I would spell out GPCRs on the first instance.
- The word "recently" is discouraged, as is "currently". These words are vague and can go out of date. Remove and reword? One can put dates on things if necessary. But Wikipedia is most concerned with facts. If you want to write a history section that is fine but dates about the development of the knowledge belong more there.
- Also, a 2002 source is used to support "Recently, formal G protein-coupled signalling has been demonstrated for a number for adhesion-GPCRs". That doesn't support problematic text anyhow.
- In the first sentence the word "superfamily" is used. In the current version of English Wikipedia, Superfamily (molecular biology) redirects to protein family. Is there a clear definition for the word "superfamily" that the literature agrees upon? If so, maybe we could provide it. If not, maybe we could just use large protein family or one of the largest family of proteins or something similar.
- "metazeons" is not spelled correctly. It seems to me to also be an overly technical word for the lead because I doubt an average lay-reader would know what it means. Use a more accessible term? The lead is supposed to be accessible.
- The "Classification" section lists as WP:Prose the 33 human receptors. But I think this would be better presented within a WP:Table. Maybe like this:
- Human adhesion-GPCR groupings
- Group 1: ...
- Group 2: ...
- Group 3: ...
- ...
- Others: ...
- Once this is done, one can delete the "Human adhesion-GPCRs" as I assume this is duplication?
- In "Classification" notice the duplication: "As the vertebrate superfamily can be phylogenetic grouped into five main families the GRAFS classification system has been proposed Glutamate, Rhodopsin, Adhesion-GPCRs, Frizzled/Taste2, Secretin has been proposed." Is it fairly well adopted?
- In the middle of sentences, I've corrected a few instances of "Adhesion GPCRs" to "adhesion-GPCRs" for consistency. Check throughout?
- I see the article Class C GPCR exists. Should a background section mention alternative classification schemata?
- I hope you have found these suggestions helpful! Thank you again for your work here, and thank you for sharing your work and knowledge with the world. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- from Biolprof