Talk:Inflammasome

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): Immcarle52.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrible Article
Encyclopaedias are supposed to have articles that provide understandable information to the layman. This is also part of the mandate for Wikipedia articles. This article reads like a medical text. It is completely useless for laymen. Someone with the knowledge needs to come in here and explain in simple language what this article is talking about. And no, it isn't as simple as it can be. Most people don't need medical text level explanation.

Edits today
I edited the intro section to make it more coherent and added some information here as well. I also added a section about dysregulation of inflammasomes and added to the empty history section. I added/edited small bits of information throughout the article as well. Immcarle52 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Confusing introduction
The top intro part is a little confusing. Human Caspase 5 is Ich3 is homologous to mouse Caspase 4 and mouse Caspase 11.

Edits of this day
Of 43 inline citations to published work appearing in this article, 39 are to primary sources. Only 3 secondary sources—reviews, texts, monographs—are cited as of this date. (Search "review" on this page, to see the three reviews, which have been marked using "format = review"" in the "cite journal" markup.)

'Hence, the article is itself a scholarly review, a presentation of editor-selected primary sources, and is not a reflection of the views expressed in secondary sources''. It therefore represents WP:OR, and so needs an expert to convert it into an encyclopedic article based, per WP:VERIFY, on secondary sources'''.

Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are over 700 English reviews of this subject on Pubmed, 140 of which are available freely, see . These reviews include high quality reviews such as this, . There is no reason for an editor to write a review, which is OR, and pass it off the original research as an encyclopedic writing. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not true. The reference you give, Activation and assembly of the inflammasomes through conserved protein domain families, Tengchuan Jin and Tsan Sam Xiao is written at a far higher technical level than this WP article is; its bag of jargon that offers no insight to the non-expert. By contrast, this WP article is actually mostly readable by someone, like me, who is smart but has no training in bio-anything. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Image removal
The image that appeared earlier here was removed by CommonsDelinker, after having been found to be in a CopyVio. See that edit for further details. I am going to add a sentence calling attention to the image, at an appropriate point in the text, and re-add the citation:{{quote| {{reflist}} The image then, can at least be accessible, until someone uploads an image that can be placed in the article. Note, it was a busy image anyway, and probably too much detail for the article, as it appeared. Le Prof 73.210.154.39 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)