Wikipedia:Peer review/Wnt signaling pathway/archive1

Wnt signaling pathway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am one of seven students in this graduate-level course, and opening this peer review is part of my assignment. Please suggest how I could help this article meet the good article criteria. The assignment ends on May 8, so responses received by May 5 will allow me time to address your comments. Achieving GA status is not part of my grade, but my responses here and the edits I make to the article to address your suggestions will be evaluated by my professor.

Thanks, Gpruett2 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

From Biosthmors

• Thanks for your efforts! I will try and find things that can be improved.
• The first instance of "Wnt" is italicized but nothing else. Can we make things consistent throughout?
  • Fixed
• The WP:First sentence (which should be a definition) says "is a network of proteins that passes signals from receptors on the surface of the cell through the cytoplasm and ultimately to the cell's nucleus where the signaling cascade leads to the expression of target genes". But that could be a definition for many signalling pathways, right? The first sentence should define the Wnt pathway. Can we include some Wnt-specific information so that the first sentence is a good definition?

• I changed the entire leading section

• The WP:Lead appears WP:Underlinked. Consider piping (see WP:Cheat if necessary) links on terms such as receptors (with Cell surface receptor) and conserved (with Conserved sequence).

• I changed this entire section and I believe I added the appropriate number of links

• In the section "Discovery", shouldn't "which" be something like "who" or "whom"? It currently reads "previous research by Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus, which...".

• Fixed

• In the section "Foundation of Wnt signalling", should "Dsh are" be "Dsh is" or "Dsh proteins are"?
  • • Fixed
  • With "Upon activation of the receptor and co-receptors" I was a bit confused as a reader because co-receptors aren't always needed, I thought, so remove "and co-receptors"?
    • Removed co-receptors
  • With "DIX domain, a central PDZ domain, and a carboxy-terminal DEP" the three letter acronyms seem overly-technical. Are they needed? Might they be wikilinked to something? Or explained briefly? I don't know what they mean.
    • Provided links and breakdown of the acronyms
• Should "Planar Cell Polarity" be lowercase? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters provides guidance.
  • Fixed
• Statements of where things are published or done "Researchers at Stanford School of Medicine" or "Research published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry" aren't generally appropriate for an encyclopedia. Try to just state the facts. "A publication from the American Society of Hematology extended the previous study". I hope studies build upon each other. =) Sometimes they do contradict and that's all well and fine too. It seems the prose here could be trimmed a decent bit. Can we cite to secondary sources and just summarize the main facts? Generally speaking, it's not good form to devote a paragraph to a study. And then another paragraph to another study. Imagine if we did that for every study that came out! We want to summarize the current field of knowledge and present it plainly to readers. We don't want a historiography of the field unless we're writing a history section. Does that help?
  • Changed the entire section and these references were all removed
• That is all I am able to help out with for now. Thanks again for your contributions. The article is looking good. I hope this review has been helpful. If you have any questions you might ask at my talk page so I am notified. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your suggestions and I hope you continue to enjoy the article. Gpruett2 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)