Talk:N-type calcium channel/Archive 1

student goals
James and I editing goals were to focus mostly on the functional and clinical section for N-type calcium channels. We also focused on making a better lead section. Our group started off with four members and this is why some sections may be incomplete or not as detailed. These sections would be the sections focusing on the blockers, the structure, and the mutation studies. There is only so much the two of us could focus on, so we picked subheadings we believed were the most important. We have more editing to do and more information to add. Jenelove (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

student secondary Review
Hi guys, overall good job for just the two of you working on this article. Just two suggestions. First, in the lead paragraph, change the "don't" to "do not." Typically, contractions are not used in formal papers or articles. Second, you start listing off the specific roles of the N-type calcium channels in the nervous system. I think that could be moved to function and possibly just end the intro before you start listing the specific roles. Also, when you start talking about treatment implications in the lead paragraph, that can be moved to the "Clinical significance" section. Other than that, your other sections you worked on are fine. Keep up the good work. Verdagj (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

student Secondary Review
For only two people working on this, it is very well written and thorough. Your article is interesting and easy to read and I think that you have accomplished your goal well. I like your use of images in the article to give a good visual when introducing the topic. The only change that I would make goes along with what other students have said, in that moving the parts of the intro paragraph that detail function, blockers, and clinical significance to those areas would leave the intro more concise. Overall, this is really well done especially because there are only two of you working on it. Keep up the good work! BMehall (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review N-type Calcium Channels
For a very detailed topic you have made your article very organized and easy to understand. There are a few grammatical errors to fix but you will catch them when you read over it once more. I like how you preceded certain information with phrases such as ‘studies have shown,’ it shows that this is a topic that is still actively being studied and there is not yet conclusive evidence about all aspects of this topic. You also had an excellent use of references throughout your article. Kmeyer517 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hi guys! For this article, I would slightly edit the introductory paragraph. A few things to consider is shortening it slightly because you include details (for instance the clinical significance) that could be saved for that specific section and in the introduction just mention that there is clinical significance for targeting these channels. You also have various words capitalized the in the article that do not need to be capitalized such as "kidney" or "calcium" or "hypertension". 9923matlous (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Student Primary Review
Good job on the article! It is well written considering there are only two of you working on it. However, there are a few typos in the leading section. I believe “is” is supposed to be “in” in the sentence discussing the CANCAIB gene. Also the fourth to last sentence discussing the function of N-type channels in hippocampal neurons needs some rewording, your explanation is a little confusing. The article appears neutral and does not have any biases. Considering the goal of the article, you all did well in expanding the function and clinical section parts of your article with specific information. I would suggest you add a broad explanation (at least a couple of sentences nothing much) like you have in the structure section, to the other sections to help readers understand and clarify your point. The two figures add to your page well and the description for each is well explained. I reviewed source 3, and it is used correctly and according to the reference listed it is a secondary source. I would also suggest using the image in this article if possible; according to the caption it is apart of Wikimedia commons and a great illustration of a single N-type channel. Good luck on the rest of your article. MWaight95 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello MWaight95, thank you for your review. We have fixed the leading section for those grammatical errors you've mentioned and also deleted that sentence discussing the hippocampal, since it didn't make sense in the leading section and we also didn't mention it later in the article. We also added in a image from wikimedia commons. We also added just a introduction sentence for the mutation section so readers can know that mutations can happen in these channels but since there were only two of us working on this group we weren't able to elaborate. Jenelove (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

student Primary Review
Overall, In taking a look at your article, I think you both know most of the edits that need to be made as you mentioned in your talk page comment, but I will highlight the areas that I think you need some extra work on. Otherwise, good job for having written this with just two people in your group! Well Written: I think overall the writing style in the article is concise and the information is accurate. As was mentioned in a previous comment, just watch out for the use of contractions within the article as well as subject verb agreement. The only area where I really noticed this was the clinical significance section, but if it is present in other areas of the article I would correct that. Also in the writing of conotoxin, i wasn't sure if the type is w-conotoxin or omega-conotoxin since both spellings are used in the article. Verifiable: The citations for the article are done correctly and are verifiable through the links provided. I followed the link for citation number 13 and found that it did link to a credible secondary source with the information referenced in the wikipedia article. All of the other citations in the article also seemed to follow that format. I think that more wikipedia links to some of the scientific terms in the article such as 'neurite' or 'conotoxins' would be helpful for an unfamiliar reader. Broad Coverage: You mentioned in the talk page that you both chose to focus on the clinical significance and function part of the page which is why they have the most information. As you said, I would add more information to the other sections and maybe add a section about the biochemical kinetics of the receptor Neutral:The article does exhibit any tone of bias or inconsistency. Stable: The article does not exhibit any drastic changes by outside editors Illustrated: I think the article could definitely could use some images. Perhaps for the structure, a labelled picture of the crystal structure of the receptor if it is available as well as some of the blockers. Perhaps for clinical function, some images of graphs of experimental data of the receptor could be included as well. Sistercerebrum (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sistercerebrum, thank you for your well written and well thought out review. We liked your suggestions and did our best to follow them to help better our overall article. In the clinical significance section the use of conjunctions was necessary for describing the N-type calcium channel properly, however I did find a few other grammatical errors that were fixed. Throughout the article we also followed your suggestion of adding more links to scientific terms that may not be obviously known by the reader. Since we only had two group members during this project it was hard for us to cover more than the function and clinical significance sections, along with the introduction, we added headings for other sections that we felt should be on the page but were unable to find the time to thoroughly add to, and edit, those sections. We also took your suggestion of adding more images to the article as we felt they were necessary to getting a full grasp on the concept of N-type calcium channels and some of the subsections involved. Once again, thank you for your review it was very helpful in the final editing of our article. 134.48.162.87 (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Jkrumholz13 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Reviewer N-Type Calcium Channels
My review addressed each subheading specifically:

Introduction-- I thought that this introduction was written very nicely and concisely. There are only a few things that I think could be enhanced. There are a few sentences within the introduction where spaces should be typed, for instance: “and possibly Y.These channels are known for their importance in the nervous system…" or “They are also used for the treatment of Hypertension, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Osteoarthritis, and other medical diagnosis.N-type…” Another suggestion is to connect the topics that you presented in a way that flows more. Perhaps you could use transition words, like in this sentence (I’ve placed brackets around the words I added): “[Moreover,] these channels also have functions within the Kidney and the Heart. [Additionally,] are many N-type calcium channel blockers, but the main blocker is w-Conotoxins. These blockers can interfere with many therapeutic processes.[2] The use of “these,” might be too repetitive. Structure—Perhaps a brief explanation of each subunit and its significance could be presented on your page as well. Additionally, maybe it could be emphasized that these additional subunits are “associated” with the channel, and how their role differs from the alpha subunit.

Function—This sentence could be reworded: “Research has shown that in the heart, when the N-type calcium channel blocker ω-Conotoxin is introduced causes there to be no more release of norepinephrine.” Maybe you could instead write: “Studies on the cardiovascular system reveal that ω-Conotoxin blocks the N-type calcium channel, and causes a decrease in the release of norepinephrine.” Also, if if if possible, maybe adding more background information on details such as “L/P/Q type channels” would allow the reader to have further understanding of the mechanism.

Blockers- Perhaps a brief explanation of each blocker and its significance could be presented on your page as well. Mutation Studies- Work on building this section if your group is still choosing to expanding on it. Clinical Significance- you could expand on this, create subheadings, and divide the paragraph according to the different diseases that are associated with the blockers.

Citation Check: I picked citation #7, and observed how it was used. It read the article, and it is a secondary source. It seemed to be cited correctly in this wikipedia page, and corresponds properly to the article of reference. The work on this wikipedia page was done using your own words, paraphrasing, and summarizing correctly.

Overall:The article was written very nicely and concisely. It was great, especially considering that there is a lack of information on the topic, and only two people in your group! The research was verifiable, with no original research. The article is broad in coverage. Lastly, the article is neutral.Francesca Marie A. Florendo 03:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Francesca, thank you for your very well written and well thought out review. You gave us a lot of very good specific suggestions to make our article better. For the Introduction section we acknowledged each of you suggestions and took them into account editing our article, they helped us make our introduction paragraph flow better along with correcting minor grammatical errors. For the Structure section we did not focus very much on it in our editing since that was supposed to be edited by one of our group members who dropped the class, however I do like you suggestions and we made sure what we do have in that section is clear still. For the function section we agreed that some rephrasing would help the section become clearer, which is exactly what we did. For the blockers, and mutation sections, these were also intended for another group member who dropped the class, but we appreciate your suggestions. As for the clinical significance section I did what I could to improve the clarity of the section, however expanding the section for each disease would result in sections that may only be one sentence long, and may not deserve their own entire section, thus we left them in one concrete overview paragraph. Overall thank you once again for you review as it was very helpful in finalizing our editing goals and our overall article's quality. Jkrumholz13 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary review
The article overall is done very well. There are a few grammatical errors and source errors that can be fixed easily. Furthermore, some of the scientific jargon could be explained a little bit more so that the general layperson could understand more thoroughly, or more hyperlinks could be used. A neutral voice was used throughout the article, which was good. Particularly, I thought that the lead did a really great job encompassing all of the relative information in a brief and easy to understand way. In the function section, I thought that the altered formatting of the second paragraph to not look great in terms of flow. Thus, if that could be altered I think it would look a lot better as the information provided is really great. The blockers section I think could use some additional information to make the list more comprehensible. Providing an introduction and function of these (not even all of them, even just the major ones) blockers could really add to the article. I liked the mutation studies section a lot, it was brief and easy to understand. I also liked the clinical significance section a lot. It went into depth well while explaining the important significance. I also really liked the section discussing the role in pain regulation. Overall, this article was done very well and I can tell that a lot of work went into it. There are a few minor things to alter, however, the article was organized and written well. 8690mellind (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Good work here everyone. Just a few things to point out, the intro paragraph seems cluttered and unnecessary in that section. Maybe break some of the more technical details into another section, as the intro should serve as a rudimentary start to the topic and not an in-depth characterization of it. The sentence "These channels are known for their importance in the nervous system," is not an objective statement or fact and should be removed. You could just state its importance in the nervous system instead. This should be repeated in the "Functions" section as well. In "Mutation Studies," alpha can be lowercased, as can "Analgesic" in "Clinical Significance."Within that section, the sentence "Issues with the alpha subunit of the N-type calcium channel ." is not a sufficient sentence for this section, as it is a clause. Other than those minor issues, the article is well-composed, balanced, and provides an insightful and broad basis of knowledge. MitchellMoylan (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
Overall this page was well done and well organized, but there are a few things that I would like to suggest.

1.) There are some errors and a few sentences that are either confusing, repetitive or have some grammar problems. I will discuss each one of these below. First in the opening paragraph, when talking about the other subunits other than CACNA1B, that sentence ("They also contain...") is kind of just thrown in the middle of the paragraph. I would suggest throwing it at the end of the second sentence that starts with "These channels are high voltage activated channels composed of..." and then move forward describing the importance of the alpha subunit. Also the importance of these channels in neurotransmitter release is mentioned twice. So I suggest looking at sentences 5-8 in the opening paragraph and just restructuring them to so they make more sense and flow better. Furthermore in the structure sub section there is an error in the 6th sentence where is says "6 six segments". Moreover, in the function section the 5th sentence can be improved. I thought this could be done by saying "when ω-Conotoxin is introduced, norepinephrine stops being released, which shows..." instead of "ω-Conotoxin is introduced causing there to be no more release of norepinephrine, and this shows that only...". Also in the function section in the last sentence kidneys should not be capitalized. In addition, in the Mutation studies section, there are no sources referenced and the last sentence may be improved if "specifically" is removed. Likewise, in the Clinical significance sub-section, when talking about how chronic pain is being reduced by inhibiting these channels, alcoholism is used as an example, but then it talks about how inhibiting these channels reduces alcoholism not the pain associated with alcoholism. Also in this section, the second sentence of the second paragraph that starts with "It also has..." is a run on and has some grammatical errors that can be fixed. Finally, in this same section, the sentence "Issues with the alpha subunit of the N-type calcium channel" seems out of place or unnecessary. The Role in pain regulation had no noticeable writing errors. One final note on grammar, the headings of some sub sections is incorrect, they should be capitalized like a sentence.

2.) The content was verifiable with no original research and all the references were listed correctly. The only section that was not verifiable was the mutation studies section, because it had no sources referenced, which i stated earlier.

3.) The coverage was broad, but it seemed to revolve almost entirely around pain. I'm not sure how much information is out there about the importance of these channels in other parts of the body, hypertension and osteoarthritis were mentioned and could be talked about more if information is out there. Also the Clinical Significance and N-Type Channel and it’s Role in Pain Regulation seem to be repetitive of each other.

4.) The overall article was very neutral and had no signs of bias.

5.) The illustrations were good, but the second one shows a G185R labeled, and that was not talked about so many might not know what that is. Also an illustration on the pain pathway for these channels could be helpful.

Overall great job and with some slight improvements this will be a solid article!! Collinryan (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Good work on this article, it is well-written and detailed. I would suggest adding more links throughout the article, and to give some information about blocking mechanisms at the beginning of the blockers section. Some more details and information given in the mutations section could be helpful as well. Tsenft7 (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
1.) This is overall a well written article. There are some grammatical mistakes, so re-read and look out for those to make sure everything makes sense. You might want to fix some of the headings as well. For example, the "N-Type Channel and it’s Role in Pain Regulation" heading. Make sure you are only capitalizing what needs to be capitalized and make sure its more concise.

2.) Make sure all your references are added in and links are connected to related words/other Wikipedia sites for that topic. Otherwise, it looks verifiable and correct.

3.) Seems to discuss main topics, including real world applications not just the molecular basics of the channel which is good and adds a variety of broad subjects to the page.

4.) No noticeable evidence of bias.

5.) Seems to flow pretty well from section to section. I would add more pictures towards the end of the article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyneurobiology (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

response to primary review from Kellyneurobiology
I appreciate your input! I will definitely make those changes and fix the headings/grammar errors Isabella3501 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

secondary review
Overall, I think the article is well written. I would suggest re-reading the article to fix some grammatical/formatting mistakes. I think the illistrations in the article are very helpful in visualizing the structure so keep those! The only section I had a problem with was the "blockers" section. I think adding some more detail about the main blockers (and how they are blocking) would make it look a lot nicer instead of just a random list of blockers. The plain list is just an eye-sore. I think after fixing these mistakes, the article will be very good, well done! AS2196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

response to secondary review from AS2196
Thanks for the feedback! We are currently working on the blocker section, and fixing grammar issues. We plan on determining what blockers do, and going into some detail about specific blockers. Isabella3501 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hello, the article seems well written and neutral. However, there seem to be some grammar mistakes, so I recommend that you re-read your article and fix these mistakes. Moreover, I like how you guys use pictures, but I think you should add a couple more to the last two sections of the article. Finally, I looked at your references and I think you should add more links within your article to further help readers familiarize and understand new words/concepts. Other than that, Great work!

(AliZraik (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC))

response to secondary review from AliZraik
Hi! Thanks for the helpful feedback! We will be sure to add more graphics towards the end and I've added more links! I will also go over all the grammar mistakes. Thanks again Isabella3501 (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
This article thoroughly covers the topic and is organized very well. One minor thing to correct is in the first paragraph, I believe the [1] citation didn't tag correctly. If possible, adding more links to other pages throughout the article would be helpful to the reader, as there don't seem to be many. Additionally, the list under "Blockers" currently stands alone, and it might be beneficial to add even just an introductory sentence before the list. 5641heatwoe (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

response to secondary review from 564heatwoe
We appreciate your review! Good catch in the first citation, we'll definitely fix that. And we're editing the blockers section to describe what they do and how they work. Thanks! Isabella3501 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review #2
1. This is a well written article with great information. However, there are some formatting issues. First, change the headings so only the first word is capitalized. Second, I'm not sure why the type is different in the "function" section but that should be fixed. Otherwise, good information. As the first primary review said, look out for grammar mistakes.

2. This article is neutral, there is no evidence of bias sources or writings.

3. This information is verifiable- all sources can be looked up and links to current wikipedia pages help. I would add more of the links to pages, however. The structure and N-type channel... sections have none of those and there is a lot of information within those sections.

4. This article covered a wide variety of topics, not just focusing on the biology of the channel but real world applications with the channel.

5. More images could be added though, mainly towards the end of the article. Maybe add is diagram or pathway about nociceptors and the channels at the end of the article where you mention how the channel is used or how alcohol increases N-type calcium function.

For a citation review, I looked at citation 5 (The one done in February 2000). I don't think this is a secondary source. It is almost written like a lab manuscript, giving a detailed methods section. This leads me to believe that the authors did the study/experiment themselves. Likewise, it gave a results section of their own findings. Since this study was done more than 18 years ago, some updated and more relevant information should be found.

Great start!

PTRK22 (talk)PTRK22 —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

response to primary review by SineBot
Hi thanks for your detailed response! As of now we've edited the formatting issues you've mentioned, and are working on condensing sources to eliminate the secondary ones as well as fixing grammar issues. And we'll be sure to add more photos. And removed the invalid citation. Thanks!Isabella3501 (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Review
Hi, overall I think that the article is well-written with a neutral voice as well as grammar/wording not being a major issue. I would suggest, however, for the "Blockers" section, to focus on the major blockers, and give a little explanation about the mechanism for how particular molecules block these channels, instead of just providing a list of them with no context. I would say that explaining a little about the main blockers, while still including the list of less significant blockers at the end of the section would be sufficient. Great work! --RyanD15 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

response to secondary review by RyanD15
Hi! Thanks for your feedback and advice! We will be sure to add more on the mechanisms for blockers.Isabella3501 (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary Review
Hello.

The article is nicely written, but there are some grammar mistakes. For instance, change it’s to its in the “N-type Channel and it’s Role in Pain Regulation” heading. Also, the heading could be reduced to N-Type Channel and Pain Regulation to be more concise. In the structure section, “Calcium Channel” does not need to be capitalized because they are not proper nouns. There are other grammar mistakes, so look out for those. Some transition words could be placed in the introduction to help the paragraph flow a little easier.

There is a good amount of information, but some parts are not clear. Maybe in the structure section talk about how the activity of the pore is modulated by those 4 listed subunits. In the function section, it states calcium flows into N-type calcium channels, but write that it’s extracellular calcium. Likewise, it is explained that a few subunits of the channel are substrates for cAMP-dependent protein phosphorylation, so how is the channel affected by the substrates? Similarly, in the clinical significance section there is information about mutations and how these mutations can cause disorders. There's already a section for this (Mutation Studies), so maybe these two sections can be combined. All the information was neutral, relevant, and stayed focused to the topic; it had all the necessary sections and broad in coverage.

When looking at citations, I don’t think citation 11 (A Blocker of N- and T-type Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels Attenuates Ethanol-Induced Intoxication, Place Preference, Self-Administration, and Reinstatement) is a secondary source. It consisted of the writers actively testing on rats with their own results. Also, it presented their own findings of their experiments; the overall article is therefore not verifiable.

The article was well illustrated, but if there are pictures available for the last two sections then it would help.

Overall, I think the article has a good amount of info nicely written (some grammar mistakes) and I learned a lot from it. Hope I helped. Thepaopao (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

response to primary review from Thepaopao
Hi, we have gone through to fix grammar issues.I've also taken your advice and changed the headings as well as their capitalization. Currently editing the intro to make it flow. as for the structure section we will try to clarify better the modulation of the subunits. And I've fixed the extracellular calcium wording. I will combine the mutation studies with the part of clinical significance that is prevalent to it. We are also adding photos for the remaining sections and have dealt with the primary citation. Thanks! Isabella3501 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Untitled
For anyone interested in the n-type calcium channel! Just an FYI it is currently being edited. ThanksIsabella3501 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2018 (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): Isabella3501, Mig0423, NirmPatel, Petar$10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2022 (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): Gryffindor987, Jenelove, Jkrumholz13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)