Wikipedia:Peer review/Circulating microvesicle/archive1

Circulating microvesicle[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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, Maximus155 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Biosthmors

Thanks for your contributions! I will look for things that I think could strengthen the article.

Thank you for your assistance throughout this entire process.

I think the WP:First sentence should begin as "Circulating microvesicles (cMVs) are..." and then define the subject. That is the purpose of the first sentence, in that it defines the subject of the article. Currently, we have "The identification of small, membrane-bound vesicles has opened a new era in the understanding of cell signaling and the process of molecular communication between cells." This does well to introduce context, and this type of context could help define the subject. I think "opening a new era" is a bit essayish in that it is not simply stating facts, which is more an encyclopedic/Wikipedia style. Reword?

I have reworded the lead paragraph into what I hope is a better introduction.

There's nothing in the WP:Lead about what cMVs contain or what characterizes their surface proteins. I imagine the rest of the article elaborates on this. Can we have at least a sentence in the lead (which is supposed to summarize the entire article} on this?

I included additional information into the lead paragraph

I hope these comments have been helpful so far. I should be back to make further comments. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Atherosclerosis", the sentence "This results in altered local cell communications, resulting in pathology" doesn't make sense to me. (There are two uses of the word result in the sentence also.) I don't know what it means to result in pathology.

I have fixed this section into something that is hopefully more clear.

Per WP:Headings there is no need to repeat the title in any section. Currently we have "Circulating microvesicle formation and contents", which can be shortened to "Formation and contents".

I have corrected the repetition.

Should one create a redirect to endosome out of endocytic vesicle?

I think they may be synonymous.

Phrases like "have been shown" or "studies have demonstrated" are unnecessary. We can just state the facts.

Done

Generally speaking, one links once in the lead and once in the body. I notice endosome keeps getting linked which qualifies as WP:Overlinking.

Thanks for picking that up.

Thrombosis and thromboembolism are sometimes practically synonymous in terms of disease. Are the sources are drawing distinctions between the two?

I wasn't very familiar with the topic, I fixed the sections to combine the two.

And that's all I have time for for now. Too bad I can't help more. I know you've worked hard! Thanks! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Maximus155 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]