Talk:BK channel

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): AS2196, RyanD15, 8690mellind.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BK channel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517013346/http://www.fermentek.co.il:80/paxilline.htm to http://www.fermentek.co.il/paxilline.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Goals of contribution
Because of the large amount of available secondary sources, Our goal of contribution for this article was to give a generalized overview of BK channels structure, function, and regulation. We also wanted to give some generalized information on how BK channels effect the body as a whole and BK channels involvement in pharmacology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AS2196 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) --AS2196 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
I think that the article was well written. Good coherence and transitional words used. Some of your paragraphs seem to be long and dense (for example for such sections as "Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole" and "Pharmacology"). Thus, I would suggest that you would break the paragraph into multiple paragraphs and maybe use bullets points making it easier for readers to read. Moreover, your article seems verifiable with no original research, thus you should not worry about it.

Your writing seems neutral. No bias or one side arguments are present. Great job for that! Facts about BK channels are clearly stated. Also, props for the pictures and tables located on the side of the article. It makes the article seem complete and well informed. Additional pictures and/or more tables could be added to the bottom half section of your article.

Source Analysis: Hermann A, Sitdikova GF, Weiger TM (August 2015). "Oxidative Stress and Maxi Calcium-Activated Potassium (BK) Channels". Biomolecules. 5 (3): 1870–911. doi:10.3390/biom5031870. PMC 4598779 Freely accessible. .

Additional Comments: This source seems to be correctly cited in your article. Using the Wikipedia guidelines, I can confirm that this source is indeed a secondary source. For the section: "Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole" it seems that you heavily rely on this source to talk about this section. Not saying that this is a bad source, but I feel that using more sources to talk about the "Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole would enrich your paragraph and provide additional information maybe not found in this source.

I feel that after reading this article, I am well informed on BK channels. Great Work!

2600:1700:9AA0:49D0:30FD:E160:DDBB:582F (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(AliZraik (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC))

Response
Thank you for your helpful comments. Both the "Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole" and "Pharmacology" sections were broken down into multiple subsections. This was done to make the sections easier to read. We added another picture to the structure section to aid in visualization and to break up the section a bit.

The source concerning oxidative stress was imperative in the "Effects..." section. This source contained a plethora of information that aided the section and thus was used extensively. Further, there were several other sources cited throughout the section. This source was found to be the most informative and detailed secondary source to be used for this section.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, it helped develop our article. --8690mellind (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
While reading I noticed that in the fifth sentence that “cytoplasmic” is spelled with an extra “a”. The picture was very helpful in visualizing the BK channel. A few more pictures like this would be nice. Overall, great details and well written! Emmett121 (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for noticing that extra "a" in cytoplasmic! We also added another illistration of the structure of the BK channel under the "structure" section which will hopefully give the reader a better representation of its structure. --AS2196 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
The lead of this article does a good job presenting the topic. With all the information provided, it might be a good idea to add in a reference or two. I like the picture that you chose to use as it illustrates what is being talked about in throughout the article. I think the fourth and fifth subtopics could be broken up within, in order to make the reading of it a little easier. Overall, the information presented is very good along with the use of references. Wagnerb95 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you so much for your constructive feedback! We agree that the picture at the top does a good job of illustrating what a BK channel looks like, however, we decided to add another picture that provides a different perspective of what a BK channel may look like. We also agreed that the last two subtopics needed to be broken up, making it easier to follow along with. For the "Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole", we broke it down by cellular level, organ level, and bodily function level; while the "Pharmacology" section is broken down by potential issues, current developments, and further directions. Again, we greatly appreciate your review, agreed with what you had to say, and made the changes, accordingly. --RyanD15 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article presents a lot of good and valid information, and the images that were used are very helpful to the reader. However, in regard to the last couple subtopics, they definitely seem to be a little too bulky with information and I suggest breaking them into multiple paragraphs. Also, throughout the article there is a great use of citing various sources, but the article could use more hyperlinks to other wiki pages if available. Overall, I enjoyed reading this article, just take those suggestions into consideration and I feel as though this article could flourish even more! JCW23528 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your review! We tried our best at breaking up the last section into more subtopics and hopefully made it a little easier to read. We tried our best at hyperlinking as many wiki pages as we could, but we added a couple to the lead and the following three sections. --AS2196 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall, I think this is a well written article. Each subtopic seems to be covered thoroughly in sufficient detail. The final two subtopics are a little easy to get lost in, especially the "Pharmacology" section. It might be helpful to break up each new idea offered, or find a different way to present this information. Additionally, adding links to as many words as possible is helpful to the reader. You did a good job of this in the last two sections, but perhaps more could be added in the other sections

There doesn't seem to be any new research presented, and you do a good job of citing the information that was taken from your secondary sources. The only area that does not have any citations is the overview (first) section. It might be necessary to cite sources if you are paraphrasing from them.

This article does a nice job of covering a broad range of areas associated with the topic. I especially liked the idea behind the last two subtopics and the application of BK channels they provided, so once they are broken up they will contribute very well to the overall article!

There is no bias suggested in this article. All of the information presented is stated in a neutral manner, as would be found in an encyclopedia.

I found the illustration of the channel to be especially helpful, and I'm sure many readers would as well. It's good to have the image to refer to when reading the "Structure" section of the article, as a lot of information is provided in that section. Great job with that!

Source Reviewed: Bentzen BH, Olesen SP, Rønn LC, Grunnet M (2014). "BK channel activators and their therapeutic perspectives". Frontiers in Physiology. 5: 389. doi:10.3389/fphys.2014.00389. PMC 4191079 Freely accessible. .

This proved to be a secondary source and the citation appears to be correct. The article does a good job of using most of the main ideas in this article. One area I would suggest some elaboration is the part in the "Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole" where it mentions BK channels playing a role in hearing. It'd really add to that statement if the role was explained, even in just a sentence or two! 5641heatwoe (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your suggestions. The last two topics were broken down into a few subtopics. The Pharmacology section was also changed around a lot to aid in a more efficient way to comprehend the material presented. Further, hyperlinks were added throughout the article. We also added citations to the lead. Moreover, additional information was provided regarding the role that BK channels have in hearing.

We appreciate your comprehensive review and it helped aid the overall quality of the article. Thank you. --8690mellind (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I found that this article was very well written and addresses many topics. However, I would say that one thing that could be done better is the pharmacology section. I think that it would be better broken up if that section was explained as being the issues that can come with the BK channel and then a pharmacology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannah neuro (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
First off, thank you for your feedback! We greatly appreciate it and agree with what you had to say. After thinking about what you had to say, we could not help but agree that the Pharmacology section looked a little bulky and daunting. In response to that, we decided to break it down based on potential issues, current developments, and future directions. We believe that this format looks cleaner, and allows for the reader to have an easier time understanding and following the material. Thanks again for your remarks! --RyanD15 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Good work on this article, there is a lot of information on this topic to sift through and I believe that it was consolidated and accurately explained/described in this article. I think that the large paragraphs in this article should be broken up into smaller ones with only one main point in each paragraph. The large paragraphs are daunting to read. Remember to end each paragraph with a short summary of what the paragraph was about. That is difficult to do with these large paragraphs. JaminB (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your Review! We broke up the "pharmacology" and "Effects..." section into, hopefully, more easily understandable subtopics and tried to get the main point across. We hope that by making more subtopics that we got rid of our large paragraphs. We also feel that adding a summary to the end of every section would not benefit the article, the lead is our summary, and by adding a summary to every subtopic would make the article too long and redundant. --AS2196 (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hi classmates! I overall enjoyed your article and thought it was very detailed. Given that there is so much detail, maybe you could either format it differently or break up your topics so that it is easier to read. While you did include an image of the structure, I feel that additional images would also aid the reader in better understanding the BK channel. You used many sources for your article, which I feel is necessary for such a topic, but also it seems like you put a lot of effort into your research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britaanna (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Hi! Thank you for all of the feedback that you provided us! We totally agree with everything that you had to say and made the changes that address those issues. We decided to break down the Pharmacology section into three subsections, focusing on potential issues, current developments, and further directions; as well as, breaking down the Effects on the neuron, organ, body as a whole into three subsections, focusing on the cellular level, organ level, and bodily function level. We also agreed that there needed to be another picture in the article. We added a similar image to the first one, however, it just provides a different perspective and look to what a BK channel looks like. Thanks again for all of the positive things that you had to say about our article and for providing ways in which we could improve it! --RyanD15 (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
Great work on this article, it is very detailed and I can tell you put a lot of research and effort into it. The lead paragraph does a good job of giving an overview of the topic and summarizing the important parts of the article. The article is also well-written and is neutral and does not have any bias. The source I reviewed, "BK channels: multiple sensors, one activation gate" (7), looks like a good secondary source and was used and cited well throughout the article.

Some suggestions:

Because there is so much information given, it would be easier to navigate through the article and find information if you add subheadings, and this would also help with the overall organization of the article. Also maybe you could add a more detailed figure of the structure with labels, of where the voltage sensor is for example, or possibly add a more detailed caption to the figure you have, as there is so much information given in the structure section that it is easy for the reader to get lost in it. Also additional figures for the activation mechanisms would be helpful in making these mechanisms more clear and easier for the reader to understand. Additionally, you mention the activation mechanisms via magnesium and calcium in both the regulation and activation sections, and you could possibly remove the detailed explanations of the activation mechanisms from the regulation section and add them to the activation section. Also, the ideas in the pharmacology paragraph could probably be organized better and the paragraph could be broken up into smaller paragraphs. I did find some typos and grammatical errors while reading as well, so make sure you proof read, but other then that, really good job on this article! Tsenft7 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. In order to improve the organization of the article the last two sections were broken down into a few subsections. Additionally, another figure was added to the structure section. This picture included some information about the activation mechanism. This was the best image that we were able to find to aid in understanding. We also consolidated the information about the activation mechanism to be mentioned only once. Further, the pharmacology section was reorganized and broken down into multiple subsections. We also fixed the few grammatical errors when reading through the article again.

We appreciated your thoughtful response and it helped aid the quality of our article. --8690mellind (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate pages
Have just added Calcium-activated potassium channel subunit alpha-1 as an aka of BK channels. Since these are the same topic suggest merging the two any thoughts.?--Iztwoz (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they are two different things: the protein subunit versus the entire functional biomolecule. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)