Talk:Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I removed the following sentence which I think was off-topic (could be added to ganglion cell instead, maybe?):
"A laboratory in Rhode Island is labelling retinal ganglion cells by retrograde transport from the brain; analyzing in vitro their light responses, intrinsic membrane properties and synaptic pharmacology using the whole-cell patch clamp method, and revealing their morphology with intracellular dyes."
After intensive cleaning:), I also removed the cleanup tag from August 2005. Gaelle Desbordes 01:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Magazine & Puffery in Discovery chapter
Although I regard the discovery as immensely important to everyday life (e.g. avoiding the blue light at night time), some expressions in the "Discovery" chapter are way too far from NPOV: "landmark discovery", "obscure science journal", "ground-breaking discoveries", "breakthrough", "spectacular discovery", "trumpeted", "shatters hundreds of years of what science thought", "greatest impact on society"...
While "great minds since Newton, Maxwell, through to Einstein and beyond, could have missed this receptor's existence", which one of them was an ophthalmologist?
"A potential criticism that the responses could have been due to heat would be misplaced ..." is clearly biased.
And, calling the photosensitive ganglion cell a "novel receptor" is a misnomer since it is supposed to be present in humans for ages, isn't it?
Overall, just the first "Brief overview" chapter is fine and factual, the other one is written more like a success story than an encyclopædic entry. What about adding some wavelength-response graph instead?
Extensive editing to language and self-promotion
Changed much of the language through entire article to bring more into line with encyclopedia standards.