User talk:JeanOhm/golgi

criticisms of original page

1. This article is not just about animal cells, so I deleted the first figure.

2. Deleted the word "most", because the golgi, in at least "primitive" form, seems to be present in all eukaryotic cells.

3. Deleted the first book reference, which i don't have access to, and which was tagged as needing a page number.

4. Replaced electron micrograph with a version with better labels.

5. added "The golgi is a dynamic structure in living cells and is highly variable in structure in different organisms." to the end of the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanOhm (talk • contribs) 03:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6. Put structure before function, as it should be, IMHO.

7. Removed original "cartoons" IMHO from structure section JeanOhm (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8. Rearranged ref's so that Golgi's orginal paper is ref 1, etc. JeanOhm (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9. "named after him in 1898" is absolutely wrong. JeanOhm (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 reference Davidson MW (2004-12-13). "The Golgi Apparatus". Molecular Expressions. Florida State University. Retrieved 2010-09-20. used in the original article is not reliable, IMHO, and I have removed it. JeanOhm (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11. The student editor eknichols screwed this article up so bad IMHO, as in this example that I find it difficult to believe nobody reverted their edits. JeanOhm (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12. "A mammalian cell typically contains 40 to 100 stacks.[5]" is stated in the reference cited, but that paper has no citation for the numbers, and as far as I know it is untrue, so I am not going to include it. JeanOhm (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13. "...also called "dictyosomes" converted to a footnote at the start "An individual golgi stack is sometimes called a dictyosome (from Greek dictyon: net + soma: body"), which was in the aticle before eknichols screwed this article up, IMHO. JeanOhm (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14. The Image:Nucleus ER golgi.svg doesn't even show vesicles coming from the RER to the golgi!!! I eliminated it. JeanOhm (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15. The first 2 paragraphs and wikitable have no inline citations. The info is mostly true, but I'm deleting all of it and starting anew. JeanOhm (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your review and advice

@Evolution and evolvability: Hi Thomas! I'm finished with an almost complete revision of the golgi apparatus article. I was appalled by what I found in, and NOT in, the current article. Could you please review the article in my sandbox associated with this talk page? I don't think even boghog can object to how I directed readers to external links, but who knows??? I believe that all the science is accurately and fairly stated. I think everybody who reads it, unless they are a professional research cell biologist, will be almost incredulous by how different the golgi is from what they learned about a "stack of pancakes". One of my all time favorite songs is Kodachrome which begins "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all." I worry about all the high school teachers who are going to be really pissed off when their students complain that the golgi isn't like a post office, back pack or collection of deflated balloons.

I'd also like your advice about a couple issues. I don't think there is any way to replace the current article piece by piece with the new one. I just plan on dumping the code of mine in place of the current article's code. One question is whether you think I should post a note on the current article's talk page about what I intend to do, direct followers to my sandbox page, and give them a couple days to adjust and comment. The worry I have about doing that is that all followers have allowed the current crap to stay, and so I fear that there will be a collection of zealotes barking at me and pissing on my sandbox. sigh. Maybe just invite a few other recent editors, like Chiswick Chap, Iztwoz, Rjwilmsi, Frietjes, Trappem, Materialscientist, Yintan, DavidLeighEllis, Fuortu, Zorahia, Jasonanaggie, Dcirovic, and Drbogdan?

Another issue is whether to compose an "Introduction to Golgi appratus" article, like there is Introduction to evolution? Since you (of all editors!) haven't contributed to the intro article, I guess that you aren't fond of intro articles. I'm not either, and I think that a bright, motivated, high school student can understand the topic by following the numerous WL's I've included. A dull, disinterested high school student wouldn't get much out of an intro article either.

Thanks for your time! JeanOhm (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an Introduction article would indeed be useful ... or perhaps a short version of it could be an 'Overview' section at the head of the main article.

I'm not sure about commenting on the sandbox, but I note in passing that the long list in "Various aspects of the Golgi have been reviewed." is neither necessary nor desirable - since the refs are already used later, the lead sentence does not need to be cited (or just once or twice). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]