Talk:Protein C/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for the review. I read the comments on the talk page that this was headed for FAC? If so, I can gear my commentary for that (which won't, of course, affect the GA assessment). Anyway, I'll have some notes up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments, questions and suggestions from 1st read-through for prose/jargon/MOS compliance. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * according to WP:lead, the lead is to be a summary of the article, and there should not be any information here that's not also in the main article text (like, for example, the alternate name blood coagulation factor). Also, there shouldn't really be any need to cite info here if it's already cited later in the article. Lead citations are typically reserved for quotations, or for controversial statements that you think might be challenged, but I don't see that applying here (except for perhaps the final two sentences about the drug effects of drotrecogin).
 * The lead is not *just* a summary; it is also an introduction. And while it should not include lots of important information not found in the article proper, I think alternative names for the protein are actually very appropriate for the first line, yet they would be silly and redundant anywhere else. With regard to citations in the lede, I don't think there is a true consensus across Wikipedia, and I don't see a reason why the lede shouldn't be cited exactly like the rest of the article. If, for example, someone wants to know the source of a particular statement, he shouldn't have to find its repeat in the rest of the article before seeing said source.
 * Fair enough. Sasata (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * suggest linking permeability to vascular permeability
 * Done.


 * "…in humans and other animals." In the article I can't see reference to animals other than humans and rodents, so is "mammals" more accurate?.
 * It's hard to say, because the proteins may be different in different species. I think vaguer is better, because "mammals" is exclusive, while "animals" is much less so.
 * According to, protein C is found in at least one bird, Gallus gallus (chickens), hence "animals" is more accurate than "mammals". (Note: the HomoloGene link is found in the Identifiers/External IDs section of the protein infobox).


 * link serine, residue (but perhaps reword to avoid consecutive links), active site, leukocyte
 * Done.


 * the EC number is a bit of jargon that shouldn't be in the lead… remember the lead should be friendly and inviting, readable by a "bright high school student"; save the nitty gritty details for later
 * Right. I just took it out. It's in the infobox anyway.


 * should insert a non-breaking space in "protein C" throughout article to prevent unsightly line wraps; also between numbers and units later on
 * Done.


 * "However, recent studies question the drug's overall benefit" How recent? "Recent" is a word to be avoided, as it is vague and becomes outdated.
 * Replaced with "Later studies". This should satisfy, I think.


 * from the figure caption: "Tertiary structure of Gla-domainless human activated protein C" Gla-domainless is heavy jargon, I doubt few average readers will know the three-letter codes for amino acids… would it be so bad if it was just left out (interested readers will click the image for more details, although I see the image description is somewhat lacking)
 * Hmm. The problem is that I'd have to modify the info box directly, and it could theoretically be used in another (more technical) article.
 * A link to Gla domain has been added to the figure caption.


 * " Protein C's anticoagulant role in the human body was first noted by Seegers et al. in 1960" Sounds like a seminal paper… why not cite it?
 * Now cited.


 * "In 1982, a family study by Griffin et al." clarify "family study"
 * "cDNA cloning of protein C was first performed in 1984 by Beckmann et al." link cDNA cloning, and reword the unnecessary passive voice
 * "In 1987 a seminal experiment was performed (Taylor et al.)" Seems inelegant to use passive voice and give author parenthetically.
 * coagulopathy should be linked here rather than (or in addition to) several sections later
 * I'll just mention a couple more examples of passive voice that could easily be reworded to make the prose stronger, and leave you to go through the rest of the article to fix similar instances.
 * "In 1994, the relatively common genetic mutation which produces Factor VLeiden was noted (Bertina et al.)."
 * "Two years later, Gla-domainless APC was imaged"


 * please clarify the Gla-domainless APC somewhere; was it not crystallizable with the Gla domain?
 * I more precisely defined what Gla-domainless APC is and explained why the Gla-domain was removed from the protein in this edit.


 * "Beginning with the PROWESS clinical trial of 2001" Seems odd that this PROWESS is mentioned here but not explained until later… I'm stuck wondering what it means, not knowing I have to wait until later to find out.
 * Citation to the first mention of the PROWESS trial has been added. In addition, what PROWESS stands for (recombinant Human Activated PROtein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis) has been added to the citation.


 * "protein C activates PAR-1" acronyms should be spelled out on first usage (other instances throughout article, e.g. IL-1β, TNF-α, GAG domain)
 * Done


 * link glycoprotein; I think being a glycoprotein is a lead-worthy fact
 * Done.


 * prothrombin should be linked here, not later; link Factor VII, Factor IX, etc.
 * Done


 * add citation for end of 1st paragraph of "Synthesis, structure and activation" section
 * "and EPRC speeds up activation" -> EPCR
 * Done.


 * phospholipids not linked at 1st occurrence
 * Done.


 * link cytoprotection
 * Done.


 * "Concentration of protein C increases until six months" missing initial "The"?
 * Yup.


 * "are the specific chemical reactions which control the level of expression" which->that
 * Good.


 * "Which function protein C performs depends on whether or not APC remains bound to EPCR after it is activated. The anticoagulative effects of APC occur when it does not." should combine these with a semicolon, I think (else second sentence is grammatically dubious)
 * Done.


 * link up/downregulation, anticoagulation
 * Done. I linked the first use of "anticoagulant" not in the lede. Is there somewhere specific you think it should be wikilinked again?
 * Nope, good now. Sasata (talk)


 * "These proteins which APC inactivates" which->that (which generally follows a comma)
 * Sure.


 * "APC has anti-inflammatory effects on endothelial cells (cells on the interior surface of blood vessels) and leukocytes (white blood cells)." Don't think the parenthetical glosses are required here, we've been told already.
 * Sure.


 * link endotoxin
 * Done.


 * "Around 5% of APC resistance are not associated" are->is?
 * "5%" means "5 for every 100": that's a plural subject.


 * link autoantibody
 * Done.


 * "functions.[4]:33Studies " needs a space
 * Done.


 * "Drotrecogin alfa-activated is a recombinant form" recombinant DNA is linked twice in this sentence.
 * Done.


 * "It is marketed as Xigris by Eli Lilly and Company." In the lead, it was "Eli Lilly and Co." (should be consistent)
 * Done.


 * link randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, confidence interval, ng
 * Done.


 * "infusion related" hyphenate
 * Done.


 * For FAC (not important for GA), you'll want to make sure that the display of journal titles is consistently abbreviated (e.g., there's a Journal of Biological Chemistry in there now, and a Semin Vasc Med that doesn't have periods); also, clean up (remove) the empty template parameters as well. Otherwise, the refs look fine. Sasata (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done

After the above comments are addressed, I'll read through the article again and check citation/sources more carefully. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the review. I am indeed considering WP:FAC. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to keep this in GAR limbo any longer, my remaining suggestions are minor and I'll sure they'll be dealt with on the workup to FAC. I spot-checked a few citations and everything seemed ok; all images have appropriate licenses; all other GA criteria are met or exceeded. Thank you for an excellent contribution to Wikipedia, and good luck with the FAC! Sasata (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)