Talk:GABRA2/Archive 1

student review
Throughout this article, the sentences appear very short and don't go into enough detail as to what is being explained. I think an easy fix would be to add more details/ explanations for each sentence and/or to combine some of the sentences. This would give the sentences more flow and connect the ideas more easily. Houstonwehaveaprob (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I noticed that the first sentence under function is more relevant and even repeated in the structure section. I would cut “The GABAA receptor has two alpha, two beta, and one gamma subunits that form a gated ion channel.” the function section and perhaps even place the structure section before the function section.

“When alcohol is present in the brain, it binds to GABA receptors and making them more inhibitory and they also bind to glutamate receptors…” Run on sentence with the extra and.

“impulsivity to those exposed to stress at an early stage in life, but can(could, if you’re referencing a specific study) be reversed with pharmacological handling of.." Just keeping the tense consistent. I really like the graphics along the side. Looks great! Goc cimane (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised those sentences that you pointed out. Also, we all agreed to switch the order of the Function and Structure sections.--BCBF13 (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article is very concise. I would like to see more discussion on the function if at all possible. Elaborate on your third sentence if you can in the Function section. In addition, the Strac et al 2015 article is a primary source and should not be used. --WithersM (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for looking over our article. We have reviewed the Strac et al 2015 article and we agree that it is a primary source. Thank you for pointing it out for us. --BCBF13 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Student Review
I think this was a really interesting topic to do. At times there were some grammatical errors that made the article a little bit hard to read, but I learned a little bit about something new. I would have liked more information about anxiety and its relationship to GABRA2. I also think that there are important facts within the article that need to be presented more clearly with a bit more explanation like most people have commented on. Another suggestion I would make would be to watch out for the amount of times that you attribute information to general studies because saying, "Studies have shown" a lot is on the wikipedia "watch list." Overall, I like the content and the clinical significance. The authors did a good job so far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverageMarquettekid (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for looking over our article. We have changed the wording of "Studies have shown", we have added more detail on our clinical significance by linking other cites and we have looked over our grammatical errors. --BCBF13 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review: GABRA2
1.	Written: a.	Reread for grammatical mistakes. I. After reading the entirety of the article, I feel that most of the grammatical mistakes can be fixed just by rereading the text in its entirety. ii. Ie: When alcohol is present in the brain, it binds to GABA receptors making them more inhibitory and they also bind to glutamate receptors to block their excitatory activity…” Unclear pronoun of “they.” b.More Efficient Writing: I. When discussing about the GABA-A receptor, the few sentences used to explain subunits in the opening segment can be condensed into one sentence/ explained better. IE: “At least 16 distinct subunits of GABA-A receptors have been identified which are typically made of two alpha, two beta, and one gamma subunit.” ii.“Subunit isoforms are seen around in various locations in the brain throughout growth.” What parts of brain? Either state some sites or do not include this sentence.

c.	Info in appropriate places: I. The first sentence of function section explains structure of GABA receptor. Find another way to introduce function section. Rest of function section is fine!

2.	Verifiable:

a. A lot of links are stated to be “unreliable medical source.” Either get the link fixed or find different articles that are “reliable.” b. Are there any new findings of GABRA2? If so, maybe state how recent this information has been released ie, “In 2016, researcher_____ discovered that GABRA2 has…” c. The article by Whitney E. Melroy and company is a solid secondary source! d. In the clinical significance section of the page, to give some more depth into one or two experiments/ tests.

3.	Broad in Coverage: a. Is the only clinical significance of the GABARA receptors only to do with Alcohol dependence or are there other reward pathways or significances?

4.	Neutral: a. No bias in article.

5.	Illustrated:

a. Colorful diagram for the structure. b. For the RNA expression pattern diagram, maybe a quick reference in the article or information next to the diagram to explain the significance of the graph. c.Find one more illustration for the last section. It would help make the article look more dynamic rather than block texts.

Response
Thank you for reviewing our article and giving us suggestions to make it better.

1. a. We have reviewed our grammatical errors and have made some changes. b. We have included the specific location where Gabra2 can be found within the brain (hippocampus and forebrain) c. We have edited the introductory sentence for the structure section to "GABRA2 is one of the 16 distinct alpha subunits found for the GABA receptor." 2. a. The citations that were marked "unreliable medical source" were made by an external viewer that is not in the class. We have reviwed these citations and for the most part they are reliable. c. We have added more detail to the clinical significance section 3. Most of our research showed that GABRA2 has significantly affected by alcohol abuse. For the research found, there is only evidence on alcohol dependence. 5. We have linked the information diagram into our writting and we have added an illustration for the last section. --BCBF13 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review
-Overall, there are quite a few grammatical errors throughout the article that need reviewing. Some of the sentences are fragmentary, while others are run-ons (ex. second sentence in the Alcoholism section). In the Intro, I think there should be a hyperlink for ligand-gated Cl- channels (or Cl channels in general). Also, since anti-anxiety medication (anxiolytic meds and benzodiazepines) is such a large part of this article, I think they also deserve a hyperlink to allow readers more information since it cannot be assumed all readers have background knowledge.

-In the Intro section, there is a sentence that says "found mainly in specific regions of the brain." This is too vague- say what those regions are. Even if they are stated later on (which I know they are at least once), this sentence implies you'll tell the reader those regions immediately. If you want to wait to say them, take this sentence out or re-word it.

-I think GABA inhibition and its role in anxiety deserves more text. Explain more about how benzodiazepines work, what they are, if anxiolytic drugs induce GABA inhibition what is the physiology behind the lessening of anxiety? It would be nice to have more specifics since this is a main topic underlying your article. I love that you bring it up since GABA is a key player in anxiety, but tell the reader more (especially in the function section).

-In the Structure section, it reads "five part pentameric form." This is redundant- just say the alpha subunit is one part of a pentamer or pentameric structure. On the whole, the Structure section is ambiguous. It would be nice to have more detail on some aspects like the "common expression" form of GABA. What is this? Does it have a specific function different from other forms? How does the structure reflect its function? Maybe tie in more with how anti-anxiety meds interact with GABA. This would also be a great section to add another picture (if you can find it) showing how GABA interacts with anti-anxiety meds.

-One major issue with the article is the various spellings/forms of GABRA2. You've titled the article GABRA2, so you should stick with this form of the word. Within the article, it is named: GABRA2, 2GABRA, alpha-2GABRA, a2-GABRA, GABRA(A), and a2 receptors. This is super confusing for someone who knows nothing about this topic- it could be assumed they are all different things, especially if they are not clear your article is on one subunit of GABA and not the entire molecule. Stick with one form of the name.

-You've kept the article very neutral and objective which is good. There is no use of the word patient or any subjective terms, especially in the alcohol and adolescent behavior sections, which is great.

-I like the structure picture included, and as I said, it would be nice if you could find one including anxiety meds interacting with the alpha subunit on GABA. I know the right-hand table is required for Wikipedia pages like this, as my group needed one as well, so I have no comments on that (all those tables are confusing if you ask me haha).

-As for your references, I think there are a few issues. References 2 and 3 link to an entire PubMed page with multiple journal postings, not one individual secondary article. This needs to be fixed.

-On the whole, the content is good, the flow is well thought out, I just think there needs to be a little work done on the References, grammar, and some of the wording (especially the name of the GABA subunit). CarElizLup (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you so much for your review and suggestions. We greatly appreciate all of your feedback. Here are some things that we changed thanks to your feedback: -We went through and reread each section, working on rewriting and fixing grammar to make the sections more cohesive. We also added more hyperlinks. -We expanded on the introduction section to include what sections of the brain the receptor is found in. -We worked to include more information about the affective drugs in the function section. - The structure section was expanded upon to the best of our ability with the research currently at hand without going into scientific jargon. -We reduced the use of other labels for GABRA2 to simply just GABRA2 :] -We added another image to the Alcoholism section (thanks Brenda) and in regards to the charts on the right, we attempted to better understand and include in our article but were unsuccessful and there is no way to remove it. -We fixed our references. --T.thompson19 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review
1) Throughout the article there are some grammatical errors, run ons, and incomplete sentences. I noticed a couple run on sentences in the alcoholism and the adolescent behavior sections. Other than that the article is good!

2) Maybe try to explain some of your source information such as α2β3γ2 a little more to further your article. Instead of saying "evidence suggests", I would maybe say something like the evidence shows.

3) I did not see anything in regards to your explanation for what you were trying to accomplish. However, the article covers several things while applying the receptors to clinical practice.

4) I didn't see any bias in the article.

5) The illustration of the structure of the GABRA receptor is helpful illustrating the explanation you provide.

6) I looked at Source #7, and it was a secondary source with a working link. This link looks reliable, and is used well in your introduction and the structure sections.

Additional Notes: I would try to explain some concepts or hyperlink the concepts to other pages if possible such as isoform, anxiolytic, and polymorphorisms. Also, try to stick to one term when discussing GABRA2/GABA receptors because you change throughout the article. On the other hand, maybe a chart or list will be helpful for all the different types you discuss in your article. Maybe try to explain things a little better especially benzodiazepine, anxiolytic activity, and childhood conduct disorder symptom. Other than that your article is presenting GABRA2 well, and I like that you bring in clinical significance. Feeny95 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you so much for the time you took to review our article. We appreciate all feedback and suggestions. Here is what we changed thanks to your suggestions: 1) We worked on the grammar in the article and rewrote “bad” sentences. 2) We worked on expanding each section and working on to removing any words that could suggest bias. We also added more hyperlinks. 3) We included another image. 4) We reworded to only use the term GABRA2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.thompson19 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Authors: The lead paragraph and subsequent paragraphs seem a little choppy with short sentences. Consider improving the flow of the article by varying sentence length. In the “Function” section, would you be able to explain at all on which “behavoiral disorders” specifically are potential targets? Are anxiety and alcoholism considered part of these behavioral disorderes? Are there any others? (“Behavioral disorders” seems like a very broad topic and I know you are focusing on the medical /clinical aspects of GABRA2 so I think that clarifying these points is imperative to a successful article.) Also, perhaps include a brief description of that the “insula” is so that someone would not have to redirect to that article in order to understand your point. Lastly, in the “Structure” section, I would recommend rewording the sentence “GABRA2 is just one subunit out of a five part pentametric form, usually bound with another alpha, two beta, and one gamma subunit.” to exclude the word “just” - in my opinion, it follows a more technical writing style, slightly more consistant with the rest of your article. Otherwise, well done and well researched article. Breezyjo1223 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you so much for your review! We did edit the lead paragraph and all sections to include more of a flow and fewer grammar issues. We also worked to expand each section and include as much descriptive information as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.thompson19 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
1) The lead is too long, some of the information is way too specific 2) When you say 'specific regions in the brain', which regions? 3) Might want to break the function section down into separate paragraphs to make it easier to follow/organize 4) Source the sentences right after clinical significance 5) Be consistent with GABA-A vs GABA(A) etc 6) Please clarify the difference between GABRA2 and GABA-A, it's very confusing

Very good article. I like the box at the beginning. Make sure you edit a lot though because there are many confusingly worded sentences and a LOT of inconsistencies with nomenclature. You need to work on clarifying all of your terms as well. I would suggest having a person outside of your group reread it before the final due date to make sure an outsider can follow it, because I was having difficulties.

ScientificStarchild (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for taking the time to review our article and offer suggestions. We did edit the lead paragraph to make it more concise while adding specifics on vague information such as the regions of the brain. We reviewed our reference and made sure we properly used them throughout the article. We adjusted our language to just use GABRA2 and GABA-A to avoid confusion. --T.thompson19 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

student goals
For this article we could not find a lot of secondary sources to fully cover GABRA2, but the couple of secondary sources we did find included information about alcoholism and adolescent behavior. Our group decided to take a clinical application approach. GABRA2 is a subunit of GABAA therefore we decided to explain the function of GABRA2, while excluding details of GABA A receptor because there is already a wiki page for GABAA.--MMstudentMU (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)MMStudentMU

Response
Thank you for your suggestions. We went back and fixed some of our sentences by incorporating more details. We especially added more detail to our function section.MMstudentMU (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Review
1) There are many sentence fragments and run on sentences that were hard to follow. Proof-reading and checking your grammar would be a very good idea. The alcoholism section particularly needs some proof reading. Additionally, the sentence “GABRA2 genes has been to various behavioral traits such as an absence of impulse control.” may be missing a word or two.

2) Most of your sources and information look good but you do bring in some primary research that is not really explained. For example you state: -“The evidence suggesting that α2 containing receptors are involved in behavioral control is the aggressive behavior in mice that was induced by benzodiazepines”. If you discuss this primary information I would at the very least explain what the experiment did, what benzodiazepines are, and what the implication of the experiment was.

3) I could not find any comment on your talk page explaining what you were trying to do with this article.

4) The article was neutral. I did not notice any bias.

5) N/A

6) I like the cartoon of the GABA receptor but there are some graphs to the right of the article that are never explained. I would recommend either referencing the graphs somewhere in the article or getting rid of them.

Additional notes:
- explain more thoroughly the difference between GABA-A and GABRA2 and GABRA1 (function section)

- You use a ton of different channel names it is hard to keep them all straight. I am not sure if they are different names for the same thing or if they are all different channels, or different subunits of different channels etc. Example: alpha-2GABRA, GABRA2, α2-GABA(A), GABRA(A), GABA-A, etc. I recommend picking one name for a channel or subunit and using that consistently.

- You have an in text citation that is literally titled “unreliable medical source”

- You definitely should to explain some terms like “benzodiazepines” and “maladaptive externalized behaviors”. Try to avoid assuming your readers are familiar with this subject.

- Many of your sources had no link to the article and I could not find them online. It may be a good idea to make your sources more easily accessible if that is possible.

Source 8: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3478960/

- This source seems to be a reliable secondary source and is used well.

- This paper has an abbreviations section; I think it would be really helpful if you had a similar section in your article

- You represented the information in the article well.

-Awaldera18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awaldera18 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for taking your time to review our article. We went through the article and fixed grammar. Also, we divided long sentences into shorter sentences. Additionally, we added more detail to sentences that were too short. We also fixed sentences that had missing words/ phrases. We decided to remove the primary source because it goes against Wikipedia guidelines (thank you for catching that!). We explained what benzodiazepines are in the function section in order for our readers to understand. Sorry, for not posting the purpose of our article earlier, but we wanted to take a clinical application approach. In regards to the graphs, those graphs were already there and I believe they cannot be removed. Our group tried tackling them, but they were very confusing.

We believe that explaining GABRA1 is not essential because our article is about GABRA2. Also, the leading paragraph gives a brief explanation of GABA-A. We decided to stick with GABRA2 throughout the article because it will match the articles title. For the citations that said "unreliable medical source" we went back and fixed them. We double checked why they were unreliable and looked for new secondary articles. Sources 2,3 were previously there; it links to the main PubMed page and we have no idea what is the exact link. We tried looking, but had no luck. We decided not to include an abbreviations page because it can get confusing for the reader. Once again thank you for looking over our article. MMstudentMU (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
I think your article could see improvements in the way sentences connect with each other within paragraphs. It sometimes read as if one person added a sentence without reading the previous sentences in the paragraph. There could also be improvements in verb tense and other grammar errors that distract from the information being presented. I think you could also add some more sub-headings if you find enough reliable sources to reference. I like your image and the side panel of information, as well as all of the links to wiki articles throughout. --CollPaulie (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your suggestions. We went back and changed some sentences around in order for them to make more sense. We went back and re-read the article multiple times in order to correct our grammar. We tried researching more possible topics, but had no luck. I guess GABRA2 has a lot of focus on alcoholism and behavior. MMstudentMU (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

BIOL 3501 Secondary Review
I think this article is well done and provides a cohesive review of the topic! I would suggest adding more internal links, like ligand-gated, isoforms, and inhibitory neurotransmitter. I would also switch the order of structure and function because some things, like GABAA receptor and GACRA2, are explained in structure then used in function so switching these would limit the confusion of your readers. Source 9, 10, 11, and 12 all have unreliable medical source written next to it, so I would look at those sources and make sure that they are not primary. I really like the clinical significance, I think it brings the topic together and really draws the reader’s interest. This may be picky, but capitalize significance in the clinical significance subheading.

MKoehler (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)MKoehler

Response
Thank you for taking your time to review our article. We incorporated more links. We also switched the order of structure and function. We also fixed the unreliable medical sources. We also capitalized significance.MMstudentMU (talk) 05:31, 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): BCBF13, MMstudentMU, T.thompson19, Nancykgarcia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)