Talk:Connexon

Untitled
GOAL: There was very little previous information in regards to connexons, so our goal for this page was to give a brief overview of their structure, function (on a cellular level and a general/overall level), and then show how problems with connexons could impact a person in a more "real life" way.

Secondary Reviews
Secondary Review: I thought this article was very well writen. It did a good job explaining what a connexon was and its role, ect to an audience who may not have a lot of science background. I think most people who would read this article should be able to get valuable and informative information out of it in a way that they can still understand. There are a couple parts where I think it would be a little too wordy with unnecessary filler words, so maybe go through and make sure that things are concise enough. Overall, great job! The article looks very good. (Spidey1994 (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC))

Secondary Review 2
This article was very interesting and expanded very well with the knowledge that there was very little from before it was edited. I thought that the picture was very helpful to get a general understanding of the structure of connexon and what the components are. I think that the structure and layout is very organized. I think one suggestion would be to maybe switch the General and Assembly in the Structure section so that it can go from general thoughts to more specific ideas on the structure. Otherwise I liked the expansion on the different aspects of the connexon especially the discussion of the functions and the diseases that could be associated with them. Lokazaki0326 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 1
I thought that this article was very well written and flowed nicely. There are some aspects that were pretty in depth that may be harder to understand for the general public. I think to make it easier to understand, you could include an image of the structure so the readers can visualize it better. Overall, the format of the article was great and I found it easy to follow because it all seemed related. I particularly enjoyed reading about the relationship between diabetes and connexons. Great job guys! Rayschneider0 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)User:Rayschneider0Rayschneider0 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 4
I really enjoyed reading this article especially because it was about a topic that we covered earlier in our Neurobiology course. There was a strong amount of links used on words that may need further explaining. I think that the picture you chose for your article was extremely beneficial! For those who may have never seen what a connexon looks like, this image gives a good over view of it from a bunch of different angles and locations. The Related Diseases section was extremely interesting to read. It brought a lot more value and importance to the understanding and necessity of connexons. NeuroKJ (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 3
This article was very well written and informative, especially since there was not much information on Connexons previously. I thought that your image was a nice touch and helped with visualization of the structure that was being explained. Organization was also done very well. It was easy to find specific areas that a reader may have questions about. The flow of the article was also very nice, it was not choppy and explanations were placed in the correct sequence so that even a person with limited knowledge about the topic could follow the article. I also found the "Related Diseases" section very interesting and educational. Good job! BMRmed1392 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary review IV
The article was really well written as well as very well organized. The page as a whole flowed really well and the sections were to the point while also being descriptive enough for one to understand the topic that was assigned. There were a good amount of links to other articles, keeping this page itself from being too lengthy, and the references were enough in number as well as content.

2280zanont (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article was written very cohesively and it is very well organized. I thought that some of the sections were in depth and difficult to understand without a solid background. This being said, the embedded links are useful in explaining the more confusing topics. However, I thought the modulation, overall function, and diseases sections were well written, concise, and purposeful. I enjoyed reading the overall functions section the best and found it the most interesting. There were not many grammar issues and you all showed that you had a great understanding of the material. Overall, great article! CateNicole (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's v.informative,I really liked it,perfect Uzaina shah (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall this was a well-written article with great information that successfully explains the significance of Connexon in biology. I read and verified the article, “Oxidant stress derails the cardiac connexon connection (reference 5). The article is accurately represented in the article, is up to date, and is a secondary article. The article is also correctly cited in the related diseases article. The important points were emphasized in the article, but I would suggest adding a picture to help explain how connexon impacts cardiovascular diseases.

In regards to the six points that make a good article, it is very well written. The sentences are simple enough for a less informed person to understand. Also, words that require extra explanation are either linked to additional wiki pages or explained later. However, I think that some of the links could use in text explanations to help focus the reader’s attention on the additional wiki pages.

There is no original research in this article, which is great. The information is still supported throughout with explanations.

The author’s note is appropriate in that it gives a brief overview of the structure and function, while explaining the clinical impact experienced in diseases.

The article remains neutral throughout and is well organized in the progression of topics. More images would help to separate the articles sections better and give a visual aid to help in explaining topics such as signal transduction.

I would try to go into more detail about the degradation of the connexon, such as talking about the endocytotic mechanism or whatever mechanism is involved. The link to the lysosome is very informative, but it may be more beneficial to simply explain the main steps of degradation so that when they refer to the lysosomal link the reader will know where to better focus their attention in order to understand the liposome’s significance in the degradation of connexons.

It may also be beneficial to include examples throughout the article to give the reader a better sense of how to relate the topics. For example, in the properties section, an example of selectivity to permeability would help. What are the certain instances where the connexons are more permeable to certain things and what are they more permeable to?

Final comment would be to link more words in the disease section, such as arrhythmias, insulin, tyrosine-kinase, and homeostasis.

This is a very informative topic and helped me to better understand the significance of connexons. Good Job! 6487heffroa (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for the helpful review! As suggested, in text explanations of some confusing words were added but if there are any specific words we have missed please let us know. We completely agree with your idea that visuals would be helpful in some sections but images for are topic are hard to come by so we are still working on that aspect of things. More has been added to the degradation section to hopefully give readers a better understanding of what occurs. We decided not to get too detailed about the endocytotic mechanisms as we thought that could be confusing to readers and specifics for connexons are not completely understood. We have tried to add some examples specifically in the part that mentions selectivity as you suggested. Lastly, the words you suggested to put links to have been liked to the appropriate pages. Thank you again for the review, please let us know if there is anything else you think should be changed! Mprosser17 (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review
So, I am first going to start with the positives of your Wikipedia pages that I saw while reading it. First off, the formatting of the page was pretty good. For the most part, what I think you wrote fit what I think you were trying to explain. You also seemed to have a good understanding of your topic and seemed to try to get all of the information from most of your articles onto the page. You also did a great job with citations and wikilinks throughout the page. There were only a few times I felt a wikilink would have helped, and I those situations there was no Wikipedia page to link to. All of your sources I believe checked out as being secondary sources when I looked them up, however, I must say that your sixth article, which was the one I did my in depth reading of, read much more like a primary source that a secondary source in my opinion. Your page also did a good job staying broad and neutral throughout the page. You could have used more pictures, but I think that the one that you did have was very effective. I assume that the reason why you did not have more pictures is because you did not believe there were good enough of pictures that would flow with the page, which I can understand.

Now, the ideas I understood in the page as a whole were great. However, I do not think that your page was very well written by any means. There were so many grammar mistakes that completely took me out of the page multiple times, making the paper nearly impossible for me to read at points. I hate to be the grammar police because I can be bad with grammar as well, but grammar is one of the six pillars for a good Wikipedia article, and I do not believe that you had proper grammar at multiple places throughout the page. The areas in particular that seemed to have distracting grammar mistakes where the Overall functions and Related diseases sections. Both of these sections had so many grammar mistakes that I feel as though they almost need to be rewritten completely or at least put into Microsoft Word so that you can see where all of the grammar mistakes are. There were small grammar mistakes throughout the rest of the paper, but none that were distracting like the ones in these two sections. I may be being a little bit harsh, considering none of your other reviewers seemed to notice these problems, but I asked other people to look over this to make sure I was not being too strict, and they agreed that the grammar was distracting and definitely needed to be fixed.

Lastly, in my in depth reading of your sixth article I could not help but feel as though it was not a secondary source. I limited my search engine to secondary sources and it came up, so it must be a secondary source, but I know that results of experiments and experimental data usually means the article is a primary source. However, I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about this, and continued to read the article, and found that you did not use hardly anything from it whatsoever in your paper, or if you did, you cited it incorrectly. I only found this article cited once, and it was only to say that more research needs to be done to better understand Cx43. Or at least that is how I read the one sentence about this article. This article had much more to explain about Cx43 than this alone, and I feel as though this article ended up being basically unused within this page.

The portions of the article that did not have bad grammar issues were great, and showed that the writers had a good understanding of the material. However, grammar is an important part of a Wikipedia page, so it must be fixed to be a good article. Othrowt (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your helpful review. We have read through the page multiple times and have hopefully fixed all of the grammatical errors so they will no longer be distracting. You are correct on the topic of pictures, the options we have are limited and the possible ones are not very helpful. We can understand why you think the sixth article is not a secondary source as it includes results, data, etc., that are usually components of a primary source. As you stated, when the search is narrowed to only secondary sources the article still appears and for this reason, and the fact that we have not been told to do otherwise, we continued to use it. As for citing that source, after looking through our page there were a couple of other places where the information was found in that article and the correct citation has been added. You point out that the article has a lot more usable information about Cx43 and that is true but we decided that most of this information was too in depth or not relevant to our page. We considered it to be irrelevant because the focus of our page is connexons and much of the article is solely about connexin 43. There is a specific page for connexin 43 so the information would be more appropriate there. Thank you again for your review and let us know if you think anything else needs to be changed. Mprosser17 (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review
Very impressive article! Had I not known been a part of this year's Neuro class I would not have guessed that this article was written completely by students at first glance. The tone of your language and the layout of the page gave off a sense of professionalism that matches Wikipedia's style. I especially liked the use of the introductory image and info box on the top right corner of the page. The material can get dense at times, and so having such a detailed image can make it easier for the reader to visualize what is being discussed in the article. In addition, your article was really well sectioned, with the locations of the various headings and subheadings all effectively placed throughout the page.

After reading your article, however, I noticed some issues. The most blatant of these are common grammatical mistakes that interrupt the flow and readability of the article. You commonly make the mistake of using singular particles with plural nouns and vice versa. For example: "Connexons contribute to the formation of gap junctions, and is (should be are) an essential component..." In addition, there were some minor spelling mistakes such as splitting cardiovascular into two words, as is seen in the related diseases section. Finally, some sections are awkwardly phrased, which interferes with the otherwise professional tone of the article. One sentence that stuck out to me was "There has not been much emphasis on their pathological function until recently and much of its function in detail is not fully understood yet." The sentence simply uses too many negatives and can be simplified to "Many of the details surrounding their pathological functions remain unknown as research on them has only begun recently." Other sentences simply need to be broken down to avoid being run-ons. Overall, the many grammar issues take away from what is otherwise a well-researched article. When editing your piece for the final submission try reading your work out loud and hearing if it sounds right to you.

Like I said, the research portion of the article was really well done and covered a wide variety of subjects related to Connexons. Your use of wikilinks really helped to explain some of the more scientific terms that I was not initially aware of when reading the article. My only concern regarding your research was the spacing of your citations and what I believed to be an ineffective use of your sources. For example, in the Overall Functions section, the only cited work is the first reference, which is cited four times within the same paragraph. I know it is sometimes difficult to find information, but I think it would be worthwhile to find other sources to help reinforce that section, especially when you consider how important it is to understanding the entirety of how connexons work.

For my source review, I have chosen to review reference 5, which is "Oxidant stress derails the cardiac connexon connection." The source appears to be a secondary source due to a lack of original research on the part of the author, meaning that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I really liked how you were able to use the information that you gained from that specific source and apply it to information from other sources and make a unified statement regarding the role of connexins in cardiovascular disease. While I thought some phrases were too similar to the original and could use some rewording, such as "leads to deviations in electrical transmissions in the ventricle predisposing the heart to cardiac arrhythmias" in your article and "lead to alterations in electrical conduction in the ventricle and predispose to lethal cardiac arrhythmias" in the original, you did a good job overall taking the information from the source and adapting it for Wikipedia.

I hope my critiques help you to improve your article! Marq808 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for the review! We have reread the article and have fixed any grammar issues we found including the particular phrase you identified and the issue with splitting the word cardiovascular. You are right in that some sections only cite one source but this is simply because the sources are quite different from each other. Some sources focus on impact of connexons in the bodily functions while others mainly look at connexons on a more cellular level. There were not many sources for us to use so there was rarely an overlap in information causing a majority of each section to be from one source. The sources were reviewed and information from other articles has been added to the Overall Function section in order to support what was already there. The specific phrase you mentioned from the fifth source was reworded to hopefully not be as close to what was found in the source. Thank you again for the review and please let us know if you think anything else needs to be changed! Mprosser17 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)