Talk:FERMT3

In-line citations
,, , . Thanks for the material that you have added and also for including sources. However it is also important that it be made clear the connection between the text and the supporting sources by using in-line citations. That is, the citations listed in this section should be moved directly after the corresponding text. A basic principle in Wikipedia is to state where you got your information. At a minimum, every paragraph should be supported by at least one source. Preferably every one to two sentences should be followed by a citation. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Content in medical topics
,, , , I'm aware you are all part of a medical course, but it appears you were not prepared for editing on Wikipedia in medical topics. Your professor may not be aware we have a framework for courses using Wikipedia, which would explain why you're running into so many issues here. Please, please either have your professor stop by here so we can talk to them, or at least let me know what their Wikipedia username if they have one.

First, it's great that you're now using sources and citations. One thing to be mindful of in medical topics is that we use sources considered reliable for medical content WP:MEDRS. Basically, we as editors summarize what the secondary sources say (i.e., literature reviews in this case). We don't summarize primary sources such as papers that are the first account of an experiment or a case study like this one. . We leave it up to the secondary source to summarize those, and we then summarize here what the secondary source says WP:PRIMARY. This is because some degree of expertise is needed to summarize primary sources (i.e., are experimental findings valid, has enough representative literature been reviewed for the claim, etc.) Right now, there are a lot of primary sources in the content. When writing an academic paper, this is expected, but Wikipedia is not an academic journal WP:NOTJOURNAL. We need to write for a general audience and try to avoid scientific jargon.

We also can't do original research (see WP:OR for more info). Part of that means we can't be drawing our own conclusions as editors. Content like this, "These observations prove that this arterial thrombus formation is due to the lack of direct binding of kindlin-3 to integrin αIIbβ3 and subsequent integrin activation that impedes integrin αIIbβ3-dependent responses of platelets." appears to be making an argument or trying to support a viewpoint. It's very common to be asked to write like that for course papers, but again Wikipedia is different. This is all to try to help you all out, but what your professor might want could be conflicting with how we write Wikipedia content. I'll review some of the content and if you have questions on changes, it would be best to ask here to make sure your content stays. If we can get in touch with your professor as well, that could also help when it comes to grading your project since we can be sure they know of any differences between what they want and standards for Wikipedia articles.

Overall, the best thing to do now is find a few review articles, and use them to create content and source content I'll be tagging. If you are citing a secondary source for a piece of content, you should not be citing a primary source in general even if the secondary source cites it unless something very specific from the primary source is cited. Once the sourcing issues are taken care of, we should have a decent article here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

, we are very sorry for the inconveniences and for not adhering to wikipedias requirements. Our assigment is due tonight and we will not modify it any further from now on. We will however attempt to modify those sentences that are incorrect or require referencing. BQUB14-Agomez
 * BQUB14-Agomez, make sure to let your professor know to contact us []. A lot of these issues could have been avoided if your professor had prepped you on using Wikipedia, so getting them in touch with us will help in the future and for grading your own project. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Marinabuene and ]BQUB14-pdelamata] you are reinserting content that was removed without discussion here and removing tags without addressing them. This is called [[WP:EDITWARRING and already got one of your classmates banned from Wikipedia. First, remember to use secondary sources wherever a citation needed tag was. Here's even a bunch of review articles related to the topic found on pubmed . Also make sure you are not copying and pasting content from sources as that will get your content automatically removed (and mostly likely a failing grade). I removed some content like that already, but I haven't checked everything for that either. The last thing is to be careful about terminology and jargon. I deleted a lot of the content because it just isn't relevant a general audience such as "Kindlin 3 binds to the distal NxxY motifs on beta Integrin tails by its FERM domains . . ." That isn't needed in Wikipedia for a general audience, so the best thing for content like that is to let the sources explain the intricate details while giving a brief summary of what the protein does in the actual content. Again, this is not an essay which you may be used to writing, but rather an ecyclopedia, so you need to refrain from drawing conclusions like you would in an essay by using language such as, "Therefore, Kindlin 3 has an important role. . ." There are other things I could mention, but I' just giving you advice on basic things I would expect of my own students if I had them editing Wikipedia articles. Not plagiarizing, writing for the appropriate audience, and following WP:MEDRS are basic things you can address now that should only help you in the end. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I will point out that your groups' edits have significantly improved since you first started. These are just the last few bare minimum things that should hopefully have you assignment set at least to Wikipedia's standards. I don't know what your professor's standards are, but that's all the more reason to have them get in touch with me or one of the other editors you've interacted with. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)