Talk:Ribbon synapse/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 05:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed before final review
While the science presented in the article looks to be fairly sound, I think the biggest problem this article has is the approachability of the prose. I've had to make a lot of little changes myself in terms of punctuation marks and such, but I feel more structural changes will be needed in order for the text to flow better. There are many short and choppy sentences that do not connect very well and then there are other overly-long sentences that are difficult to understand. I would appreciate if some more work could be done to make the text easier to understand. Beyond that, here are some other issues that need to be addressed:


 * The "Function" section needs to be restructured. The first two sentences are going off in different directions and nothing is there to support their claims.


 * The sections "Loss of hearing and sight in mice" and "human implications" should be combined and restructured because right now, the two sections are repeating themselves.


 * All journal citation references should have a doi or a PMID link.


 * I find the first sentence of the "Exocytosis" section to be difficult to understand: "During exocytosis at the bipolar ribbon synapse, vesicles are seen to pause at the membrane and then upon opening of the calcium channels to promptly release their contents within milliseconds.". Please rewrite to better explain the choreographing and timing of what is occurring.


 * The last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Other areas..." section: "While no evidence has been published, the association between CaBP4 and Cav1.4 is an area of continued research." If nothing has been published, how do you know that it is continued to be researched? Is it actually being researched or has it merely been theorized? I think something needs to be cited here, and if you're looking, I'll bet that the most likely place to find such information would come from a discussion section of a research article.

That's all for now. Please don't be discouraged. As I said, the science looks good. It's just that science needs to be conveyed through writing, and if the writing is lacking, it can make the science harder to understand. I will place the article on hold until these issues can be sorted out, which should generally not be much more than a week. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Status update
Being that more than 7 days have past since the article has been placed "on hold" and no edits have been made to the article, the article should likely be failed at this point. I have notified the nominating user of the situation. Because of the holiday season, I imagine users may not be in a position to make the edits needed. For this reason I will postpone further action for this article until after the New Year. -- Tea with toast  (話)  03:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Final review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * There are some sections that need to be restructured, see comments in review above
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * See review comments above
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Excellent job researching this topic
 * B. Focused:
 * Lacks focus mostly due to prose quality
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * While not necessary to obtain GA status, I think the clarity of this article could be improved with the inclusion of some images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I commend the editors for the great expansion of this article. Unfortunately there are some minor issues that have still not been addressed even after extending the hold on the article. I would encourage any editor to make the changes needed and renominate the article for GA in the future. -- Tea with toast  (話)  03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * While not necessary to obtain GA status, I think the clarity of this article could be improved with the inclusion of some images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I commend the editors for the great expansion of this article. Unfortunately there are some minor issues that have still not been addressed even after extending the hold on the article. I would encourage any editor to make the changes needed and renominate the article for GA in the future. -- Tea with toast  (話)  03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I commend the editors for the great expansion of this article. Unfortunately there are some minor issues that have still not been addressed even after extending the hold on the article. I would encourage any editor to make the changes needed and renominate the article for GA in the future. -- Tea with toast  (話)  03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)