User talk:JdanR/Agonist

Sam's Peer Review

I don't really understand what you intend to do by the first point in your outline. The first part of your intended changes (the "Mechanisms of action" part) I think seems pretty good overall, at least in outline form, although I don't think that the part about current research is necessary, and given what you said about medical stuff, it might be easier to just avoid it, at least for now. One other thing, where do you intend to place these new sections in the article? That's all I have for now, but if I can get to your actual draft rather than just your outline, I'll make any more comments that I think will be useful. SamLovesScience (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Review of updated draft

Overall I'd say this looks pretty good. A few changes that I think would be good, though, would be first not capitalizing acetylcholine or receptor in any instance. The acetylcholine receptor is a specific thing, but I don't think it should be capitalized. You also say that the conformational change allows the acetylcholine receptor to push ions through the channel, but is that accurate? I thought the channel was just that, so the changes would allow ions to flow through (down their gradient), but that the receptor itself doesn't do any ion "pushing". I could be wrong about that, though. It also might be better to say that conformational changes are the primary effect of the agonist, rather than the primary purpose. Purpose just doesn't quite feel right to me, at least in this context. In the sentence talking about the magnesium ions blocking NMDA receptors, I think it would be better to say magnesium ions, rather than Mg2+ as that is notation people might not be familiar with. Also in that sentence, "specifically" would sound better to my ear than "in specific" and I also think the sentence would flow better if you just left out the "unless a separate condition is met" and just say "unless the cell is depolarized" or "unless the cell voltage is high enough" or something like that. Hopefully these additional comments are useful. SamLovesScience (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

JDotter's Peer Review

I think that the outline seems very logical. I agree with Sam that it is difficult to tell where in the original article this will be placed. But I think that it is such a well organized idea that it could go basically anywhere. I think that a small section talking about current research with some links isn't a bad idea, but I'm not 100% that it is wikipedia appropriate, they seem to be pretty stickler about those kinds of things. I am also willing to look things over once you've moved out of outline phase. J dotter (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

JDotter's 2nd Peer Review

I think that the two examples you give for the agonists and receptors are great ways to examine the mechanisms of action, however, I would break the two examples into different paragraphs or subheadings. If you had two figures, you could also di this by placing images to separate the two examples. In the article itself I think that the introduction could use a bit more context. For example, it is never mentioned that we're talking about cell biology. (maybe a link to cell biology article could be useful?) I also think that you could clarify the difference between the molecules/ions that travel through the channel and the agonists themselves that open/close/affect the channel. I think that the location you specified that you are going to insert your edit into the article makes a lot of sense. As an alternative to a figure, there are many animated gifs that demonstrate the action of agonists online. You could insert them, or link to the youtube video. I suggest this because it is often more helpful to see the movement than read about it. One that comes to mind is Calcium acting as the agonist to move troponin in the sarcoplasm of muscle cells.

My general impression of what you have here is very positive. Make sure you mess around with the formatting to get it right and remember that we are writing to a less educated audience and I think it will turn out great! J dotter (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)