Talk:Cycloserine/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Broad spectrum"

why and what's the spectrum, exactly? Vancomycin has the same basic MoA (inhibits peptidoglycan synthesis) and is only effective against gram positives. Anyone got a reference for this? Cajolingwilhelm 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

The 1st citation for this article is a fairly rough outline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.197.33 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add a recent article as a reference for the function of D-Cycloserine in extinction in the nucleus accumbens. How do you do that? This is the article:

J Neurosci. 2010 Aug 4;30(31):10526-33. D-cycloserine reduces the context specificity of pavlovian extinction of cocaine cues through actions in the nucleus accumbens. Torregrossa MM, Sanchez H, Taylor JR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.121.199.143 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Peer Review

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1

• For some of the technical concepts like the enzymes and other bio-molecular terms in the Mechanism, you may want to link to other Wikipedia pages so this article is more accessible to laypeople.
  

4. Refs:2
5. Links:2
6. Responsive to comments:2 No recent comments on the page
7. Formatting:2
8. Writing:1

• cycloserine is the generic form of Seromycin, so I believe that its generic name is not capitalized, so you might have to lowercase wherever it appears aside from the title.
• Some molecules may not need to be capitalized, so double check on that
• There are some grammatical errors and awkward wording in some sentences
  • Be careful of your sentence structure like comma placement. Make sure that a comma needs to go in the sentence as a pause. If not, delete it. Some grammar buffs might get on your case about it.
  • Be careful of missing/adding words in your sentences.
    • For instance, "DCS works (as) an antibiotic by inhibiting cell-wall biosynthesis in bacteria"
      

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?:2
Great job on increasing this 5,307 to over 20,000 bytes! The article has been dramatically enhanced than what it was previously. It was a nice flow of how you introduced the neurological relevance and carried it throughout the article.
_______________
Total: 16 out of 20
Ladeidramonetroberts (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1

• consider linking words such as: agonist, central nervous system, synaptic plasticity, intraperitoneal injection

4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1

• the caption of the Stimulus-Response Relationship should probably have relationship be lowercase
• the caption of the image Cocaine Powder should have powder be lowercase
• in the L-Cycloserine section, in vivo should be italicized

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1

• It's almost there! I really like path you took with your section choices.

_______________
Total: 17 out of 20
SarahReed54 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

________________
I mistakenly did peer evaluation of your article, feel free to remove my comments and evaluation. I just left them here if you like to use them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahar.rahsepar (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1

• suggest adding more internal Wikipedia links (hyperlinks), many of the terms are technical and didn't have links
• Better organize and distinguish different parts of the article, some revision to the outline of the article could help a lot with the readability specially for larger articles like this one.

4. Refs:2
5. Links:2
6. Responsive to comments:2
7. Formatting:1

• There are various formatting deficiency, like extra spaces between paragraphs, or "====Social Anxiety Disorder====" in the anxiety and stress therapy section
• Also organization of the sections are not helpful for guiding the reader through the article. I suggest revising order of sections.

8. Writing:1

• I know that the article is long and it is hard keeping track of the grammar, but I suggest checking grammar and typos. There are some improper use of articles, punctuations and word choices.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page:2
10. Outstanding?:1
Article is nicely revised from the initial condition, but still needs more attention and better format. Having pictures in the article is nice, but I suggest paying more attention to use of them, some of them are not really helping the reader for better comprehension of the article. _______________
Total: 16 out of 20
Bahar.rahsepar (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Quality of Information: 2
   Great amount of information and detailed subsections.
2. Article size: 2
   26,165 bytes
3. Readability: 2
   It was readable and easy to follow.
4. Refs: 2
   Impressive amount of references! Great job with these!
5. Links: 2
   There were many links to make the reader fully understand complicated materials.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
   No recent comments.
7. Formatting: 1
   Pay more attention to formatting because some of the information seems to be repeating.
8. Writing: 2
   Very well-written and organized.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
   Username is a real name.
10. Outstanding?: 1
    Very good article, but be sure to not repeat information throughout your article. Good job otherwise!

Total: 18 out of 20

--Poornarajeevan (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Hifza's Comments

I improved this page on cycloserine after reading scholarly articles on this topic. I better organized the previously existing information in the context of what I research. I edited this page as part of an assignment at Georgia Tech's Neuroscience class. Hifzasakhi (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hifza's Comments

Thank you everyone for your feedback. I took all of your comments and made the edits as you all have suggested. Thank you for your contributions in making my article better. I really appreciate it! Hifzasakhi (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

_______________
The NMDA figure is somewhat confusing and misleading. It seems to suggest that the glycine-binding site is on the same subunit as the glutamate binding site. I suggest that this figure be given a careful review. GC2013 (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)