Talk:Norepinephrine/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: I would be happy to review this article for GA status. Any and all other comments by involved and uninvolved editors are welcome and appreciated. Good luck!
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 21:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Good. I won't be online much between Jan 5 and Jan 14, but I'll keep up as much as I can. Looie496 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The process
First of all I do a good read through. If I find spelling or grammar mistakes, I simply fix them without bringing what I find here. It's a waste of time finding a spelling error and making a comment about how someone else should fix it. If I find duplicate links, I fix them for the same reasons. If I see a place for a wikilink, I do the formatting for creating the link. I check the links to see if they link to the right articles. Again, if I find a problem and it is faster for me to just fix it, I will. If you want to see what I fix as I go along, watch the article edit history. I am not going to sign my comments. If you see a comment that is unsigned, it is mine. Again a little time-saver of mine. Everyone else, sign your comments.

I believe this to be an encouraging process, not a trial. If I find something I like, I will say so. If I find something I don't like, I will say so but if it has no bearing on the criteria listed below, it will not determine if the article passes the review or not.

This is a long and technical article. I have degrees in chemistry and biology. I am now enrolled in a nursing program. Therefore, I anticipate that it will take longer than usual to make this review.

Preliminary opinion, first glance: It looks great - I don't anticipate finding major difficulties.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary reports
Someone has created a script, a tool that is supposed to help evaluate the article. I don't quite understand the significance of the tool but will post the results that the tool spits out. Lots of time, the tool makes suggestions for improvements that I think are unnecessary. It checks dead links and such. I will post the results of what the 'GA review' tool/script spits out here:
 * So far so good, peer reviewer tool analysis incomplete.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Vacation
I will be on vacation from Jan 4 - Jan 10. I might work on the review during this time; it depends on other activities that I participate in while I'm on vacation.
 * I am back from vacation.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist
Here are the criteria that I will be using to assess the article:

Prose

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * prose
 * Comment - This sentence is located in the last paragraph and seems to be quite long and have its share of clauses: "Early in the twentieth century Walter Cannon, who had popularized the idea of a sympatho-adrenal system preparing the body for fight and flight, and his colleague Arturo Rosenblueth developed a theory of two sympathins, sympathin E (excitatory) and sympathin I(inhibitory), responsible for these actions."; I was going to break it up into two sentences rather than write all this, but thought you might like to do it yourself since it seems to be quite an important idea.
 * Thank you, it reads much better. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

✅Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violations
✅ Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar
This is still ongoing. ✅ Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Manual of style
✅Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * I edited the lead and want you to take a look at it to tell me you think it is appropriate. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a very small copy-edit, but other than that it seems fine to me. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC),

✅Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Layout
✅Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Word choice
✅Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual, accurate and verifiable
This is on-going and will probably take the longest. I am checking the wiki-links.
 * The article would be better if you sourced this statement: "...norepinephrine can either be broken down by monoamine oxidase...". Its one of those statements that I know is true, but the source only supports the re-uptake of norepinephrine. I went to the monamine oxidase article and couldn't find a source there. I have a textbook, perhaps I can find the ref...but you should also look. It is an important 'thing' about the regulation of norepinephrine and I would feel better if the info was sourced. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I found and inserted a source. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * - question really. Does norepinephrine have an effect or is it used by the parasympathetic nervous system? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be surprising if it had some sort of inhibitory effect, but I haven't seen any source stating that it does.  It is not used by the parasympathetic system in any way as far as I know. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It does have a 'pacemaker'-type of effect, just heard about it in lecture on Thursday but I will insert that later. You've done most of the work and this one comment of mine does not need to 'fixed' for the article to become a good article.
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

✅Good to go
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference section
✅ Citations are to reliable sources. Good to go.

Broad in its coverage
The coverage in the article covers the major aspects and is focused.
 * Would it make the article better to describe the effects on the heart more specifically like increasing heart rate and cardiac output, stroke volume? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean adding a paragraph to the Functions section focused on the heart. That would make sense to me, if that's what you mean. Looie496 (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ Good to go (since you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about, I will go in and add it later)
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
✅ Good to go.

Stable
✅The article is stable and the edit history shows that it has a regular and consistent history with edits from many good editors. I see no edit wars. Good to go.

Images
✅The images and illustrations add to the article and appropriate. I see you are a graphic artist and created at least one of the images. That is great! Good to go.
 * "Graphic artist" is too strong. I have created a bunch of images, but in this case all I did was change the labels from French to English. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77
I just skimmed over this so this'll be brief
 * For the bullet-point list in the Sympathetic nervous system, remove the periods at the end because none of them are sentences (they're all fragments except the ones with multiple sentences). Also, try to condense each bullet-point into just one sentence.
 * ❌ I don't agree with this. It's hard to explain exactly why, but it feels wrong to me and I think it would look weird to most readers. I would welcome an opinion from Bfpage. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Back from vacation, very, very sorry to keep you waiting. I will take a look immediately.
 * ✅ I took a look at the list. Having periods at the end of the phrases is not exactly grammatically correct, but that will not be a reason I would not give the article a good review. I do know that the FA process would assess this more strongly, but I will not. It is fine. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * wikilink anatomy words like locus coeruleus or, if it doesn't have its own article, briefly explain it.
 * ✔️ I agree with this suggestion, but I think the article already follows it, except in cases where a term is used multiple times in a section, in which case the MOS says that it should only be wikilinked on the first occurrence. Pointers to specific instances that ought to be linked would be welcome. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One link per term is sufficient and preferred.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 23:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article contains the term locus coerruleus about four or five times. Though this does not need to be changed for a GA review, what are the thoughts behind wiki-linking it so many times?
 * Would you be able to address the numerous times that Locus coerruleus is wikilinked? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to not change that. The term is likely to be unfamiliar to lots of readers, and all the wikilinks are in different sections, far from each other.  It seems to me that there is value in not forcing the reader who wants to look it up to explicitly type the term in order to find it -- especially given the difficulty of spelling it. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In the History section, change "Early in the twentieth century Walter Cannon..." to "Early in the twentieth century, Walter Cannon..."
 * ❌ This is basically a style issue, and my preference is to follow a style that minimizes the use of commas. But if Bfpage agrees that the sentence needs more commas I will change it. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have a similar editing style and use clauses and commas when I am forced to by the avoidance of copyright issues. I also use sentences without commas, or clauses since I edit in the same way. In my opinion, the sentence does not 'have to' be changed. But really this seems like such a minor thing. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * For ref no. 57 (P. Holtz), add the parameter |language=German
 * ✅ Done, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the constructive comments and your participation in the review. It looks you did a pretty good run through the article and found things that I likely might have missed. I would quietly suggest that the time it took to write the sentence about the periods might have been greater than the time it would have taken to remove them. The more eyes looking at this review, the better. The very best of regards,:: Bfpage &#124;leave a message 12:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to have proposed changes raised here, particularly since I disagree with some of these and would much rather discuss them than be forced to decide whether to revert them. Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)