Talk:Ribbon synapse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ribbon synapse was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 2, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-peer review[edit]

Hey guys, the article looks great! I think you have a little bit of general cleaning up of the article to do before the deadline, but all of the information is there, which is good. Here are a few suggestions:

  • You have a non-functioning hyperlink in the intro (multivesicular release)
  • Check your use of bold text; I'm not sure how common or necessary it is in Wikipedia articles
  • The first sentence needs some revision--it is too long and choppy. It's very important (especially in the first sentence) to be clear and concise in your definition of the topic so that the reader can grasp the concept right away. Try breaking it up and being more direct.
  • Typo under "endocytosis"--should be "conserved" in the last sentence
  • Maybe break up the last "Ribbon Synapse Assc. Abnormalities" into two sections--add one on "current research"
  • Careful with excessive capitalization, even in the titles/headings, you shouldn't be capitalizing every word

Good luck! Stempera (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks for all the help! we got rid of the non functioning hyperlink and got rid of the bold text. we also broke up the first sentence into two because we do feel those two sentences describes what a ribbon synapse does. we also got rid of the excess capitalization. jon changed the title of the last section to current research because he felt thats what his section was generally about. and we fixed that typo. thanks so much for all the help again! TheDanKim (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Excellent article, but here's some minor fixes:

1. As far as linking to other articles you did a good job, but here's a few more that I found Wiki's on that could be added to your links: KIF3A, GTPase, otoferlin, and synaptotagmin. Also your link for multivesicular release is broken.

2. Capitalization is good except for in the titles. Unless it's a proper noun only the first word should be capitalized (even if capitalizing both of them looks better for a title).

3. In some instances it seems like you are almost dancing around the fact. Rather than say things like, "therefore," "this makes the ribbon synapse...," "there are also," and "for example," just state it straight away and avoid those fillers.

4. I would switch the word "around" with the word approximately (around is used multiple times in the text, particularly in the section pertaining to neuronal synapse distance).

5. Finally, the last paragraph in the section on function is repetitive with the paragraph on exocytosis. I would consider combining them in one of the sections.

Keep up the good work! Excellent use of sources to say the least!

Sheggers (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the comments! we hyperlinked all that we could and we fixed the broken link as well as all the capitalization. great suggestion on getting rid of the transition words because i guess in wikipedia you don't really need those. we thought around was fine because it all refers to the same contextual meaning. and finally, we're still deciding what to do about the exocytosis part. theyre a little different in content so we might learn towards keeping it as is. thanks again! TheDanKim (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, we shortened it! Thanks again. TheDanKim (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review (2)[edit]

I really enjoyed learning about the ribbon synapse from your article. I really appreciated how you began the article with a comprehensive definition of the ribbon synapse before beginning to discuss the details. You also have many references which is useful for the reader to do his or her own further research.

A few suggestions: the "multivesicular release" link in the first paragraph does not link to a functioning Wikipedia article. I thought you had a lot of great links to Wikipedia articles that helped to clarify certain topics that were mentioned in your article, but you might want to consider adding more to the later sections in the article, as almost all of them appear in the first section. I also wonder if you could add another section to the article about possible therapies, if they exist, or current or future research into human implications. I thought that the "Human implications" section was very interesting, and I would like to know more about it. Also, just make sure to go through the article and change any unnecessary capitalizations, and I agree with the peer review above about getting rid of fillers and stating the facts outright. Great article!

thanks for taking the time to read the article! we addressed most of your concerns in the prior comments! we actually fixed our sources up a bit so we condensed it to a couple less than we had originally but once again, thanks! TheDanKim (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ellenmcmahon (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 3[edit]

This is a great article and it was interesting to learn about the mechanisms of fine-tuning vesicle release. I thought the introduction was particularly strong as a general overview of the need for ribbon synapses, where they are located and their general function. As the other reviewers said, I think it would be helpful to add more links throughout the article. Adding a picture or schematic diagram would help to visualize exactly what you are talking about if possible. Also, proofreading certain sections would help clarify some confusion (such as in the mechanism section) and avoid things like random commas in the structure section.

The last section on problems associated with ribbon synapse abnormalities was particularly interesting. The first part about disruption of neurotransmitter release was repetitive with earlier sections of the article, particularly the exocytosis section. Expanding this last section to get a better sense of the clinical significance of these structures and any current research would be an interesting addition and make the article even stronger. Looks great so far!

Thanks for looking at our page and for the comments. We added more wikilinks along the article. We cannot really add a picture because it is not under wikimedia content. We thought the exocytosis in each section was relevant to each different section. We're in the process of currently trying to add to current research. Thanks again! TheDanKim (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Horowitr (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 4[edit]

Well done, guys. This article gives a good amount of information on the topic with necessary details. A minor mistake would be linking the word "multivesicular release" because it does not direct the readers to any informative page. Try linking more terms for not many readers are familiar with general terms as we may be. I also realized that there is no heading dedicated to current research or future directions for studying ribbon synapses. It is always good to let the readers know where the current research is headed. Lastly, if you could add (only if you could find one) an image of ribbon synapse or its mechanism, so it helps the readers visualize the topic. But overall, great job guys, and with some minor fixing this article will be flawless. Parkcr (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

thanks! we fixed that link and linked a lot more terms. we also renamed current research from the abnormalities to indicate where its going. we're not really sure we can add a picture though because of copyrights. TheDanKim (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 5[edit]

Very informative article. There is a lot of good information on a very specific topic. However, I have a few suggestions where the article can be improved. First, the first sentence in the Introduction is unclear and it runs on. "Some particular neuronal cells" is vague, and I wasn't sure what you meant. Also, there are 3 independent clauses in the sentence. It would probably flow better if you broke them up into separate sentences, one with 2 clauses and the other with 1. These run-on sentences seem to be a recurring error throughout the article. For example, the second sentence in the "Microscopic Structure" section is a run-on that contains 2 independent clauses without punctuation to separate them. I saw a few more of these as well, so I would suggest reading through the article and trying to eliminate them. Also, the first paragraph of the "Function" section repeats information from the Introduction. Finally, I agree with the other reviewers that it would help the reader if you could wikilink some more of the more scientific terms in the article. Overall, it is a very well researched article, and I enjoyed reading about this particular type of synapse. I hope you find my comments to be helpful. Good luck! --Hortonan (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! We broke the introduction sentence up into two so it didn't run on anymore. Also, we started to proofread our sections and hopefully, it flows better now. we wikilinked the article a lot more, and we're figuring out how to condense some of the sections that are a bit repetitive now. TheDanKim (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 6[edit]

Awesome information!!

I think you need to include a few more links to other pages such as kinesin motor protein KIF3A, photoreceptor, Retinal and bipolar cells, synaptic ribbons, cytomatrix proteins, ATP hydrolysis, otoferlin because these are words people may need a definition for.

It may be helpful to include a picture or diagram depicting the location and function of the ribbon synapse. Also, you say that RIBEYE is a unique protein to the ribbon synapse, it may be helpful to give a one sentence statement of what it does or why the subunits enlarge with the additions of more subunits.

I think if you added a future research section would be a great end to a really good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenv (talkcontribs) 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the feedback, we really appreciate it. As for the hyperlinks, we have been going through and adding and editing them where needed. Also we added a current research section that we think makes the article more interesting. Let us know what you think, and thankyou again. MattSchechter (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 7[edit]

This is definitely a very informative article with a clear approach to subject. One of the great things about it is that it is strikes a very nice balance between describing the mechanism in a way that is technical enough for the scientific community and maintaining its readability for the average user of the site. It also does a fine job of describing the chemical mechanisms behind the processes of exocitosis and endocitosis in a similar fashion.

As far as critiques, one thing that struck me was that some sections came across as a bit repetitive. For example, several parts of the article emphasize that the function of these synapses is to increase sensory speed but the argument of why and how this is done is relatively mild throughout and expansion on the subject throughout the article is limited.

As far as a few other things I've noticed, you have a link posted toward multivesicular release that is highlighted in red. That being said, the link to this given subject does not exist. You may want to examine why that is happening. Furthermore, as a reader I felt it would be of great assistance to the reader to include a diagram or image of the synapse to give a visual representation of its structure and function. Also excellent job including the EPSC diagrams to corroborate the evidence expressed in the associative abnormalities section. Overall, it was a great article and a pleasure to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LewisCS13 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the feedback, we really appreciate it. We have been editing the article and have gone through it and fixed all of the spelling and grammar errors we could find. We have also edited many of the sections in ways we believe will make it flow better. We are also in the process of adding and editing hyperlinks on the page. Thankyou again for your help MattSchechter (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 8[edit]

Hello Ribbon Synapse group,

You article was really interesting and it was so easy to follow! There are some misspellings like “specialise” in the first paragraph. Check it over =)! I think it is important to mention structure before function. This is because structure and function tie together. Explaining structure first will help your readers understand function. You can link “retinal” and “bipolar” cells under “function”. I really loved how you separated the structure section into microscopic and molecular. It would be awesome if you guys were able to find pictures describing each structure. In “molecular structure”, there seems to be a lot of molecules involved. Maybe it would helpful to make a table of the different molecules and a description of what it does. Under “exocytosis” it may be help full to link “hydrolysis”. Diagrams depicting these two processes should also be helpful!

In the section “Ribbon Synapse Associated Abnormalities”, I wasn’t very sure what the graphs were trying to depict. It would be help if you expand more about the graphs in writing. In “human implications”, expanding on each individual physiological significance will contribute to your article. It is also important to explain what “phenotypically” mean. When you were talking about oteferlin, maybe state the difference between the phenotypic condition and genotypic condition.

Angiguo644 (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the input, we appreciate the help. We have been going through the article and editing for grammar and spelling. As for the structure and fuction sections, we feel it was simpler to list function first to give the reader an idea about how it works before we go into further detail about the specific structure of the synapse. We have also added a lot of hyperlinks to the article to make it connect to wikipedia as a whole better. Thankyou again for the feedback MattSchechter (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 9[edit]

Hey Ribbon Synapse People,

There are a few spelling mistakes around. Red through it again. In my first skim through, I couldn't help but notice the lack of hyperlinks to other articles. Put those in so people can check out other things related to Ribbon Synapses that you have mentioned.

Are there any pictures that you can "draw" of the synapse. It is hard to get a picture of it. Also, those pictures in from the article have permission right? If so, well done! I really enjoy the structure of the article, the titles and content have a nice flow that is not seen in other classmates articles. Are there any articles at the bottom that you can put in a "See Also" section? I often see those in other wiki's and it seems like your topic can be related to many others. Other than those few things nicely done!

pmcronin (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, we appreciate the help. We have been going through the article and editing for spelling and grammar. We also have added a lot more hyperlinks and are currently looking into more ways to get pictures involved with permission. Thanks again MattSchechter (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review 10[edit]

Good work on the article guys! It was interesting to learn the cellular aspects of this synapse and how often it is used in our nervous system. A few things that I would suggest to you is to add more links to your article especially to the bottom half where there is little to none. Also I think you should edit the “Ribbon Synapse Associated Abnormalities” in separating current research topics from the existing abnormalities. For example, you could separate “Loss of Hearing in Mice” and “Loss of Sight in Mice” and put those headings under a different heading titled “Further Research” or something to that extent.

I think you really nailed the mechanism of how the ribbon synapse actually works especially the exocytosis of the mechanism. You might want to add in a little more information about the endocytosis aspect of the mechanism. One suggestion is that that you could explain the molecular mechanism of how the vesicles are budded during endocytosis and which proteins are involved. Matthomas118 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Thankyou for the feedback, we really appreciate the help. We have gone through the article and tried to add links an citations wherever applicable. We took your advice and separated the Loss of Hearing in Mice and Loss of Sight in Mice into a section on current research topics. I think these changes that you suggested really helped with the outcome of our project, thanks again MattSchechter (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ribbon synapse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 05:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed before final review[edit]

While the science presented in the article looks to be fairly sound, I think the biggest problem this article has is the approachability of the prose. I've had to make a lot of little changes myself in terms of punctuation marks and such, but I feel more structural changes will be needed in order for the text to flow better. There are many short and choppy sentences that do not connect very well and then there are other overly-long sentences that are difficult to understand. I would appreciate if some more work could be done to make the text easier to understand. Beyond that, here are some other issues that need to be addressed:

  • The "Function" section needs to be restructured. The first two sentences are going off in different directions and nothing is there to support their claims.
  • The sections "Loss of hearing and sight in mice" and "human implications" should be combined and restructured because right now, the two sections are repeating themselves.
  • All journal citation references should have a doi or a PMID link.
  • I find the first sentence of the "Exocytosis" section to be difficult to understand: "During exocytosis at the bipolar ribbon synapse, vesicles are seen to pause at the membrane and then upon opening of the calcium channels to promptly release their contents within milliseconds.". Please rewrite to better explain the choreographing and timing of what is occurring.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Other areas..." section: "While no evidence has been published, the association between CaBP4 and Cav1.4 is an area of continued research." If nothing has been published, how do you know that it is continued to be researched? Is it actually being researched or has it merely been theorized? I think something needs to be cited here, and if you're looking, I'll bet that the most likely place to find such information would come from a discussion section of a research article.

That's all for now. Please don't be discouraged. As I said, the science looks good. It's just that science needs to be conveyed through writing, and if the writing is lacking, it can make the science harder to understand. I will place the article on hold until these issues can be sorted out, which should generally not be much more than a week. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Status update[edit]

Being that more than 7 days have past since the article has been placed "on hold" and no edits have been made to the article, the article should likely be failed at this point. I have notified the nominating user of the situation. Because of the holiday season, I imagine users may not be in a position to make the edits needed. For this reason I will postpone further action for this article until after the New Year. --Tea with toast (話) 03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Final review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There are some sections that need to be restructured, see comments in review above
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    See review comments above
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Excellent job researching this topic
    B. Focused:
    Lacks focus mostly due to prose quality
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    While not necessary to obtain GA status, I think the clarity of this article could be improved with the inclusion of some images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I commend the editors for the great expansion of this article. Unfortunately there are some minor issues that have still not been addressed even after extending the hold on the article. I would encourage any editor to make the changes needed and renominate the article for GA in the future. --Tea with toast (話) 03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)