Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Polyclonal response/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polyclonal response

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 wanted to know if it could be upgraded in its quality assessment, and if it explains the intricate principles involved sufficiently well to persons not connected to the field of biology.

Thanks, Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: I really like the lead image and the way it gives a non-technical model for understanding the topic of the article. Here are some comments for improvement:

  • Biggest problem is missing references - for example, the first three paragraphs of "B cell response" have zero references. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Missing word? In [the?] course of a normal immune response, a foreign substance, such as an invading virus, ...
  • Perhaps make Such a recognizable foreign substance is known as an antigen. the start of a new paragraph in the lead (split first paragraph into two). This would also help meet the number of paragraps requirement for WP:LEAD
  • Figure 1 - the grey backgound is distracting and makes the figure harder to read - could the background be white and the highlights be red or some other color?
  • I am also not sure about identifying images as Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4.
  • this "treatment meted out to" to the antigen is known as the exogenous pathway of antigen processing needs a ref (direct quote)
  • Watch out for jargon and please explain or remove it as much as possible - see WP:JARGON
  • There are several short paragraphs of one or two sentences - these are choppy and interrupt the flow of the article and should be combined or perhaps expanded.
  • Internet refs need url, title, author if known, and date accessed - see ref 2, 4 and 6
  • References are inconsistent - for example Ref 1 should be something like " Goldsby, R.A., Kindt, T.K., Osborne, B.A. and Kuby, J." Why are some author names red links and others are not linked at all (I would not link these unless the author already has an article) Why are some names in bold and others are not?
  • {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and other cite templates may be helpful for consistency.
  • Article could use a copy edit

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC) --KetanPanchal talk-TO-me>>> replies Firstly, sorry that somehow your review missed my attention. That's because all the "action" is going on in the talk page of the article. As such a lot many changes have occurred in the article, so some of the concerns expressed by you automatically got resolved (at least so I think). Ruhrfisch comments: I really like the lead image and the way it gives a non-technical model for understanding the topic of the article. Here are some comments for improvement:[reply]

  • Biggest problem is missing references - for example, the first three paragraphs of "B cell response" have zero references. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
    • I believe, now you won't be finding the references missing.
  • Missing word? In [the?] course of a normal immune response, a foreign substance, such as an invading virus, ...
    • Well, this is not the first time this point has been raised. Somehow, I hadn't been comfortable with the usage of "the"; it didn't "sound" right. But, as the point has been raised again, I have made the requisite change.
  • Perhaps make Such a recognizable foreign substance is known as an antigen. the start of a new paragraph in the lead (split first paragraph into two). This would also help meet the number of paragraps requirement for WP:LEAD
    • The entire lead has been divided into three paragraphs now. Though the concerned sentence continues to be in the same paragraph. In fact, I feel, if the sentence is starting with "Such a..." involving such a strong reference to the previous sentence, it better be left in continuity with it (the previous sentence).
  • Figure 1 - the grey backgound is distracting and makes the figure harder to read - could the background be white and the highlights be red or some other color?
    • The leftmost panel involves just the stages, the one to its right involves the textual depiction, so I thought to maintain the difference, variation in shade of grey would help.
  • I am also not sure about identifying images as Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4.
    • Yes, you're very right at that. I couldn't device a way to make the text directly link to the concerned figure, (though, now I have managed to do that with a very crude method), which was creating problems because so many times new images were uploaded and the figure numbers were changed.
  • this "treatment meted out to" to the antigen is known as the exogenous pathway of antigen processing needs a ref (direct quote)
    • Now, I have provided the reference. Only problem is I don't know how many readers would have access to that book.
  • Watch out for jargon and please explain or remove it as much as possible - see WP:JARGON
    • I have tried my best (which I concede needn't be enough) to make the article understandable to people not associated with this field. I'd be very grateful if you could provide specific instances where you felt certain terms/concepts required further elucidation (please remember: the article has undergone some changes since you last read it).
      • Just at semi-random When this activated T cell encounters a B cell that recognizes the antigen containing the same epitope as recognized by TCR, the latter (B cell) gets stimulated because of secretion of certain growth factors, viz., interleukins 2, 4, 5, and 6 in a paracrine fashion.[5] yet this whole thing is pretty technical. One other idea might be to write a simpler Introdcution to PCR article and be technical here - see Virus and Introduction to virus for example. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've included a glossary of terms (not alphabetical, though) within the article. Do let me know if you find that helpful.
--KetanPanchal talk-TO-me>>> 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several short paragraphs of one or two sentences - these are choppy and interrupt the flow of the article and should be combined or perhaps expanded.
    • Again, I'd be grateful if you would cite specific instances.
      • "Clonal selection" section is only two sentences. This is a one sentence paragraph This phenomenon comes into play particularly in immune responses against influenza, dengue and HIV viruses.[21] as is the paragraph after
        • Thanks for pointing that out. The error had crept in while introducing the references, and has been rectified.
--KetanPanchal talk-TO-me>>> 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet refs need url, title, author if known, and date accessed - see ref 2, 4 and 6
    • I believe, those deficiencies have been removed.
  • References are inconsistent - for example Ref 1 should be something like " Goldsby, R.A., Kindt, T.K., Osborne, B.A. and Kuby, J." Why are some author names red links and others are not linked at all (I would not link these unless the author already has an article) Why are some names in bold and others are not?
    • This has been rectified.
  • {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and other cite templates may be helpful for consistency.
    • Thanks.
  • Article could use a copy edit
    • Well, I didn't get you on this occasion. Are you talking of manual copy editing, or is there some automated feature for this? Talking of manually doing it, other users and I are continuously trying to make the article as accurate and error-free as possible. Obviously, pointing out specific errors would be of great help in this attempt.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, of course, your review was most useful. I'll try reviewing some material. By the way, I did review post concussion syndrome, though quite informally.
Regards.Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manual copyedits alas. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem. I'm going out of town for a week, so unfortunately, won't be available to reply to comments. you're most welcome to make changes that you deem fit in the best interests of the article.
Regards.
--KetanPanchal talk-TO-me>>> 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Travel safely - I am afraid I don't do copy edits unless it is a topic I know something about. WP:LOCE and WP:PRV are places to ask for a copyedit. Another trick is to print the article out and read it out loud. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Polyclonal_response/archive1&oldid=1136449295"