Talk:Bestrophin 1/Archive 1

student goals
We are adding additional information to this page for a class. We plan to keep the gene infobox on the side the same, but revise all other information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeagles (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Our goal was to improve this article by adding additional information regarding the structure, localization, function and diseases associated with the Best 1 protein. We decided to focus solely on protein rather than include detailed information about the gene. MRoidt3 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
I can't find any grammar issues or layout changes I would recommend. Only thing is that the research section is not needed at the end. Nice article, it is well written and concise. You have a good amount of images but the more the merrier because people learn more from them then text. --T.thompson19 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We have removed the research section as you had suggested and added an additional image. We would have liked to add more images, but due to the relatively small amount of information regarding Bestrophin and the various diseases, we were limited on the number of useable images. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student secondary Review
Overall, the article is well written with minimal errors in formatting or spelling. I agree with many of the aforementioned comments on this page that some minor editing is to be done as well as maybe addition of some more images as a visual aid to the page. Sistercerebrum (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We have added an additional image, but due to the nature of the diseases, finding images that did not violate Wikipedia copyright policies was the main limitation we encountered. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
Overall, this is a well written and organized article. I would suggest moving the Research topic between Function and Diseases and add more about any other research in regards to the gene's function, how it was identified, or how it is expressed in its mutated form. Also, I read that there aren't any treatments for these diseases, but what are the options for the affected people? --BCBF13 (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We decided to eliminate the research section and tie the information in with the diseases themselves. We also did some more research for potential treatments. However, the resources we found indicated that there was no real treatment or cure that was beneficial to affected people. Thus, in order to make sure we addressed your ideas, we tied the research in stem cell therapies in as a potential treatment for affected individuals. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
Probably one of the best student articles I have read. The Diseases section was well organized, straight forward, and offered many diseases related to the BEST1 gene. It particular, I enjoyed the short, yet informational, paragraph associated with each disease. I would only suggest keeping the capitalization for the BEST1 gene consistent throughout, preferably keeping it in all caps. LettuceEdit talk 23:10, 19 April 2017

Thank you for your review. I am glad you enjoy our article. Many other students also mentioned consistent capitalization for BEST1 vs Best1. We have added a number of clarifiers throughout our article now, but BEST1 refers to the gene while Best1 is in reference to the protein. We have thoroughly checked the usage of these throughout our article. I hope our changes have made this more clear. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
This is a very professional article. I am impressed how you made this topic readable to the public without crossing the line into being too scientific. I did not notice any grammatical errors or poor sentence structure. One thing I would change is to remove the last section about research. You can incorporate the fact there is no known treatment into the disease section. However, Wikipedia does not have a timestamp so saying something is happening as of 2017 does not really fit in with the goal of Wikipedia. That statement will no longer be true as more research is being conducted. Otherwise really good article!--AMonocle (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We are glad to hear that you feel the article can be understood by the general public. We took into consideration your comment regarding the research section and incorporated the research concept that there is no known treatments or cures into the disease section. We also added 2017 to ensure readers know that the information is as of 2017. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
This article is very concise and easy to follow. It gives specific information to your topic and very professional at the same time. I truly like the fact that even though this is a heavy science topic you guys have used "simple English" where a audience from a non-science background would have a easy time trying to read this article. You have a great amount of pictures where people can learn from them and there is not a single grammatical error I see as of now. Definitely feel like there is even more great information you can find to put to make your article more enjoyable. There are many hyperlinks to vocabulary people might not be familiar with which is great so people can go straight to the hyperlink if there is any sort of confusion for them fix. Crnogorac15 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Crnogorac15

Thank you for your review. We are excited that you feel the general public will be able to understand our topic. We felt that we included as much relevant information as we could, without adding additional topics or becoming too scientific. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
Overall this was a very well written article. It was written very professionally, and gave a lot of good information. The page was clear, easy to read, and not overloaded with information. I think you could add a few more pictures to really catch your readers attention, possibly by the diseases at the end. I learned that Best1 is expressed with and synthesized with other proteins in the ER, which I thought was interesting. User: Brookeheim User:Brookeheim (User talk: Brookeheim) 18:08, 18 April 2017

Thank you for your review. We are glad that your found our article informative but not overwhelming. We added an additional image in the disease section, but the rarity of many of the conditions associated with the variety of diseases made finding images that did not violate Wikipedia's copyright policy difficult. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
Good job on your article, it is very well written and the illustrations work well. I would suggest explaining some of the terms you use or hyperlinking them such as "missense mutations" and Vitelliform lesions" in the diseases section. This just clarifies and gives readers a better understanding. MWaight95 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. We worked through the entire article again to try and add as many hyperlinks as possible. Hopefully this will lead our readers to more information if necessary. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review
I looked through the Kunzelmann 2015 article. To start, the journal is a good journal with an impact factor around 13. This review gives a good overview of bestrophin and related Cl- transporters. It is fairly concise and it is up to date. --WithersM (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) In general, this was well-written and is much more complete than the original stub. A few minor comments. Keep the formatting for “BEST1” the same, meaning either all caps or just the first letter capitalized, because it is not consistent in the page. Additionally, a few sentences seem out of place. The last sentence in the Structure section and the second sentence in the Tissue section either need to be reworded or clarified.
 * 2) Going through the sources listed, there were a fair number that were primary sources. For example, the Barro Soria 2009 article, while a good article that has been cited by other good papers, is still an empirical data article. The Stone 1992 article, Stӧhr 2002 article, Tsunenari 2003 article, Esumi 2007 article, and the Hoek 2008 article (this one is particularly troubling because it has “novel” in the title, and anything with “novel” in the title most likely is not a review) are also all primary sources. This is a problem because that is half of your article sources (not including the three protein descriptive pages). However, most of those sources seem to be only referenced once, so they may be able to be removed. With that said, the line about BEST1 and the “…two independent studies to be regulated…” should be removed because both studies are empirical. If those empirical studies have reviews, then use those reviews instead. I see that many of these, if not all were on the page originally, but regardless, they should be removed.
 * 3) This article is definitely covering more information than what originally existed. It is well-detailed and thorough.
 * 4) The content on this page was neutral and did not appear to contain any bias, though the primary articles should still be removed if possible.
 * 5) N/A
 * 6) The illustrations on the page were relevant and helpful. The lipofuscin image should have a more descriptive caption.

Thank you for your review. A couple comments in response to your suggestions. The reasoning the formatting of BEST1 and Best1 changes throughout the article is that they are actually two different things. BEST1 is the gene while Best1 is the protein. We have tried to add additional comments throughout the article to clarify this to readers. We also worked through the article again and tried to reword some of the sentences that you felt didn't flow as well. In response to the sources, the sources you had listed as primary were left in order to keep some of the information that was on the stub page prior to us beginning work on the article. After reading your review, we worked back through each and every one of the source to double check them as being primary or secondary. We removed as many primary sources as possible without completely eliminated the prior work that existed on the topic. We also expanded the captions on all of our images in order to make them more informative. Thank you again for your honest review. MRoidt3 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review
1. Overall, the article is well written and easy to understand. Everything flows nicely and includes information that is relevant to each section. However, in the first couple paragraphs (such as the introduction) I suggest maybe using more transitional words or phrases rather than simply beginning each sentence with "the bestrophin-1" or the "Best1." Also, for grammatical purposes, it would probably be better to stick to either using all caps "BEST1" or simply just "Best1" throughout the article for better consistency. Lastly, I feel that the "research" section may be omitted off/left out since it does not provide much interesting or important information from my perspective.

2. I decided to read and review the referenced source article "Bestrophin-1 enables Ca++-activated Cl- conductance in epithelia." This referenced article appears to be a legitimate and up-to-date secondary source. Although there was lots of information presented in this secondary source, it is good to see that you only used what was applicable or supplemental to your article and your specific topic. On the other hand, after reviewing your reference #8 article (stöhr, 2002), it appears this is a primary source article and perhaps should not be used as a reference for this Wikipedia article, unfortunately.

3. Generally, this article appears "short and sweet," providing enough details (more than was available before about the topic) for the reader, in a clear, concise manner, to know what Bestrophin-1 is. The topic is covered and it appears the "goal of contribution" is applied or rather fulfilled for this article.

4. The provided information was indeed neutral, having no bias or misguided information written per say. The information provided was focused on Bestrophin-1 in a professional, scientific manner.

5. (Stable section - No comment)

6. This article uses some good illustrations throughout, however, an extra photograph or two in a couple of the diseases sections would be even better and more interesting to see for the reader. Also, I noticed that there may be two of the same photos present in the article, that is, the first and second photo of the "calcium-activated chloride channel." It appears they are the same photo but just different colors, so this may be adjusted perhaps.

Overall, this article is very well and professionally written. I feel like I thoroughly understand what Bestrophin-1 is after reading this article, and that some minor modifications (like more illustrations) would be helpful and make this article even better. →Great work! Batmed 095 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Batmed095

Thank you for your review. We worked to change up the sentence structure as you indicated, not only in the first section but throughout the article. We intentionally used BEST1 and Best1 throughout the article as they represent two different things. BEST1 is the gene, and BEST1 is the protein. We have added various clarifications throughout the article to hopefully make this more clear to the reader. We also decided to eliminate the research section and address the idea that there is no known treatments or cures in the Diseases section. The source that you come to review was one that came from the initial information on the page. We have worked to eliminate as many of the primary resources as possible, without completely eliminating the information present before we started. We also added an additional image to the Diseases section as you suggested. We would have liked to add more but were limited due to Wikipedia's copyright policy and the rareness of the conditions discussed. We also addressed the captions and images of the first two pictures. Although the captions are still similar (they were taken from the same source), the images now depict different angles of viewing the protein, as is described in the image caption. Thank you for all of your suggestions. MRoidt3 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review
1. Well Written: Overall, it was written in an a way that most people will understand. It was not overcomplicated and it provided a lot of additional links that may be necessary. There weren't very many grammar mistakes and I enjoyed the layout and the flow of the article.

A couple corrections I would suggest are:

-In the introduction, in the last line of the second paragraph, link Retinal degeneration instead of just retinal. There are a few places where retinal degeneration is mentioned and adding the link retinal degeneration may be helpful instead of retinal or degeneration (as seen in Tissue and Subcellular Distribution line 2).

-In the title of the section Best'S vitelliform macular dystrophy. I would suggest changing it to simply "Best vitelliform macular dystrophy" as it is stated in the review article although I know that you linked the page vitelliform macular dystrophy

-I think that the research portion of the article is not necessary as its own subsection and could be integrating in each portion of the retinal diseases.

2. Verifiable with no original research: I looked at the article "Bestrophin 1 and Retinal Disease." The article looks very current and reliable. Although in the original review it had a lot of information about each of the retinal diseases and clinical trials, I am glad that you included a lot of the relevant information to bestrophin 1 and its role in each betrophinopathy.

-I just have a quick question about RP in the article, it says, "The authors reported four missense mutations in BEST1 associated with patients diagnosed with RP in five unrelated families." but you wrote, "Retinitis pigmentosa was first described in 2009 and is thought to be a result of one of four different missense mutations in the BEST1 gene in people of unrelated families." Was this information found somewhere else also?

3. Broad in Coverage: I think that the information that was focused on provided the main aspects of the overarching topic. It presented just enough detail and overall a better understanding of Bestrophin 1.

4. Neutral: the content was overall neutral and provided information that focused on the scientific consensus

5. Stable: N/A

6. Illustrated: I like the addition of the pictures. The pictures themselves are visually appealing and added to each of the betrophinopathies. I think that the captions are aptly named. The first two illustrations have the same caption.

Overall, I feel that I learned a lot from this article and it was written in a concise matter. I liked the pictures but adding more visuals would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageMarquettekid (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your review, we have made a few changes based on what you suggested. With regards to your question in #2 of your review, our content was written based off that article (the one that you reviewed). We have edited it to make a little bit more sense in that the disease was not first described in 2009, but its association with BEST1 was.Pootsonewts (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your constructive feedback! It is always helpful to have an outside perspective review your work. We added more links to potential unknown words such as retinal degeneration like you suggested. We also removed the research section and integrated it below the description of the diseases. Thanks again for reviewing our page! Jpeagles (talk) 23:22, 26 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): Jpeagles, MRoidt3, Kyle.mckibben, Pootsonewts.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)