Talk:Acid-sensing ion channel/Archive 1

Updated Acid-sensing ion channel page for Wiki Education Foundation Class Project
Three other student editors and I are updating this page by expanding on the information already present and going more in depth on the sections that were already started. We found it made the article flow better by rewriting all the sections already present, making sure to keep the quantity and quality of the original content with our new edits. We wanted to convey an understanding of the structure, function, and location as well as the pharmacology and physiology associated with acid-sensing ion channels. Additionally, we added a section on a few pathologies that relate to the functioning of acid-sensing ion channels. Our group is happy to take any constructive feedback on this talk page that could continue to help the quality of the article. Parker443 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you all did a good job with selecting sources and summarizing them. i appreciate the time you took to format them correctly as well.  thx. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Student BIOL 3501 Secondary Review
You guys did a pretty good job researching and making this page.

The main things that I saw that could be fixed would be the multiple grammatical errors (which a quick read through by everyone should address and fix)and that some of the paragraph are very long and dense. I would just suggest breaking them up into smaller paragraphs, so they are not as imposing. I am also pretty sure at the end of every paragraph there should be a source cited.

All in all a solid article!

Hunter.ar (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
Well done! The research and information provided really provided some good information regarding the topic. A couple things to watch out for in order to improve your page: MRoidt3 (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Check grammar and spelling as well as punctuation. Fixing these small errors can really help improve the flow of the overall article.
 * Be careful with all of the scientific jargon. Remember that an every day person should be able to get the general idea about what your article is talking about. If you can't find other ways to phrase your points, be sure to define some of the very scientific words.
 * Some of the sections are very long and dense. Weeding out some of the less important (very detailed) information can help condense the amount of material and make reading the article more manageable.

student Secondary Review
First, your article is very thorough and well researched. It would help to define more of the scientific terms so that it is easier for an everyday reader. For example, heteromultimers in your first paragraph. You need an "is" after ASIC in the first sentence of your function section. Your article is also well cited which is definitely a sign that you worked hard on it. Kickpuncher08 (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
The article is easy to follow along based on how it is written, so I think you guys did a good job communicating a complex topic to people who haven't heard of it before. Other than a few grammatical and spelling errors, I think one way you can improve your article is by providing more links to things that people wouldn't generally know about (IC50, biphasic current, apoptosis). Also, if you can find an image of a labeled protein structure that coordinates with what you wrote in the Extracellular region, that would help following along visually. Overall though, very good job. pootsonewts (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

student secondary Review
Some minor grammatical errors and sentence structures that could be fixed. Overall good body of well cited information, but paragraphs are a bit dense and could be broken up a bit for clarity. A handful of instances of unnecessary information or information that does not quite fit the heading it is under. Adding some pictures if you can find them might be a good way to reduce necessity for long wordy descriptions. Kyle.mckibben (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
You did a good job researching this subject. You provided a lot of information on the subject, but the sections are very dense. If you could cut out some of the unnecessary information that would help improve the article. Along with that, cutting out some information would be helpful because the sections contain so much scientific jargon, cutting some of that out would make it easier to read. Besides that, just read over the article for grammar mistakes. William.eggers (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC) William Eggers

Secondary Student Review
Intimidating. There is so much text on this article its hard to take it all in at first glance. As such it would be nice to see the long sections broken off into paragraphs. Moreover, I think it best to initially state the abbreviations for the sodium and calcium cations in parentheses so that there is no confusion to the laymen. Furthermore, it would be nice to either provide a description or link one to describe what β-ball and β-sheets are for the same reason.

Otherwise, this seems to be well written. Once the reader dives in he or she should be able to understand the majority of the language used; especially with the use of analogies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StepheJ (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review
1. As a whole, I thought this article had a lot of good information. There are some grammatical and spelling errors, but these can easily be fixed by reading through the article again. Your introduction paragraph is very short and doesn’t provide the reader with sufficient background on ASICs. Also, maybe you could re-organize the order of your categories. A reader should not have to do independent research while reading an article, there are a few words that should either linked or defined in the sentence. For example ischemic is not a word non-science majors would know off the top of their head and you did not define or provide a link for this word.

2. I looked at your source number seven and it looked good! It is a review article from a reliable source and it is from 2008 so it is a pretty current source. This article had a lot of information about your topic; the source provides very detailed examples of the inhibitors of ASICs and how they function. You guys did a great job utilizing this information under your pharmacology category, but I think you could hold back on some of the details you provided in your article because you want to keep it as broad as possible.

3. There are a lot of specific details, which disrupts the flow of reading. I recommend that you do another read-through and decide which information is important and relevant. For example, under the first paragraph for the structure section is ir really necessary to explain how the crystal structure was obtained? Under the extracellular region section you mention the presence of other acidic residues and then list all eight of them, maybe the names of these eight residues could be left out and you could just mention that other acidic residues for an acidic pocket to make it easier for the reader to comprehend. Overall I feel like you guys picked broad categories to discuss which is good, but you went into way too much detail within those categories making it difficult to follow along.

4. The information in the article is neutral; there are no opinions about the topic.

5. n/a

6. You guys included a video of the crystallized structure of an acid-sensing ion channel. I think it would be a good idea to add a photo of the “fist-like” structure of the extracellular region.

Cjungers (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)CJungers


 * Thank you so much for your feedback. Your first suggestion was to improve the introduction paragraph because it was short and doesn't provide enough background. To improve this, broad summaries of the channel's structure and function were added to the intro section. You also said something about reorganizing the order of the categories. We switched it to Structure, Function, Location, Physiology, and Pharmacology. We are working to cut out unnecessary details. Specifically, we took out the scientific jargon regarding the acidic residues of the extracellular region. We agree that adding a photo of the fist-like structure would be ideal, but one cannot be used without violating copyrights.Mwelch1990 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! We improved the introduction to cover a broader function/ significance of the channel. We have changed the order of our sections within the article. Re-reading the article as a whole, helped us determine which information was pertinent and which was not. 9923matlous (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Source Review
I thought overall, the article was well written apart from the couple of grammatical errors already mentioned. I also think the opening paragraph could be a little more concise with what information you're trying to convey, it seems a little choppy in the last two sentences and doesn't leave the reader with a sufficient enough broad idea of ASIC before they jump into the main article. Also the order in which the information is presented could flow a little better (function,location, physiology, pharmacology). Your sources look good, they are all current enough to be relevant. I looked at your second source since it seems to be most recent and most cited and it looks like a reputable source. The only thing I might double check is if you cite the first publication date (which would be Dec 2016) or most recent, or if it matters at all. I also think adding more links for science jargon, or briefly explaining it beforehand, would be beneficial to the everyday reader. The article seems to be neutral. I liked the crystallized picture you had of the channel, but it may be nice to add more pictures relevant to the location or physiology if you can find them. Overall, there doesn't seem to be many major fixes in your article and it was written well. Nice job. Mges24 (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback! We rewrote and added more information to the introductory paragraph to make more broad and clear for readers. We also rearranged the order of our article sections to make it flow better. We checked to see which publication date should be used in citations, and the updated version is the correct one. We have added more hyperlinks to our scientific words, however for some specific ones the pages don't exist and therefor no link can be made. We looked for other photos but there are none available on the Wikipedia commons page. Mwelch1990 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! We fixed/ clarified our introductory paragraph. The function and significance of ASIC has been influcluded. We also included more hyperlinks to our article for clarification. We have also rearranged the order of our sections. Unfortunately, there are not many photos available for our use! Thanks for all the suggestions 9923matlous (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Source reviewer
This article was well written overall! Good work you guys.

A couple comments:

1. There were a couple grammatical errors and spelling errors that need to be fixed when you edit this page again. 2. I read a couple of your sources and really thought you guys did a good job of picking good sources. There is a lot of information about this topic and I thought you explained elements of confusing information very well and in better terms. In particular I focused on the pharmacology sources. You did a good job of explaining that these channels are becoming more studied and more of a pharmacological target. The source was very well-written. 3. I think that you did a good job of broadly explaining the topic of acid-sensing channels. I think you could add a little more to the introduction paragraph regarding the location of acid-sensing channels and perhaps their relevance on a greater scale (target for drugs/medical use) etc. 4. I think that you guys could switch a couple of your paragraphs in an order that would make more sense. I think switching the channel opening section and the structural paragraphs would be less confusing for the reader. That way the reader can understand the structure first, and then when you are explaining the finger and thumb regions in the channel opening paragraph, it will make more sense. Another thought I had was placing the last four paragprahs in the order of function, location, physiology, and then pharmacology last. AS a reader, that made the most sense to me. 5. OVerall, the information you had for this article was very good and you had great sources. Well done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1093connola (talk • contribs) 03:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your feedback! We added information regarding ASICs function in pathological states and their function as pharmacological targets. As addressed in the other primary review response, we switched around the order of our sections. We completely omitted the channel opening section because we felt it was repetitive with the function section of this article. Mwelch1990 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. We added the recommended information both in the introduction and within the article on the relevance of ASIC on a greater scale. We also rearranged our paragraphs for clarification. Thanks for the suggestions! 9923matlous (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ehartmann01, Parker443, 9923matlous, Welchsfruitsnacks.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)