User:PolyMurrase/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ryanodine receptor

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I found this article after asking my lecture professor a question about receptor affinities for a ligand being modified through genetic mechanisms (I meant intentionally but mutations became the subject), when he mentioned the condition of malignant hyperthermia being triggered by anesthesia in individuals with certain mutations to this receptor. Ryanodine receptors are widely expressed in the body and play a role in numerous key physiological processes, but compared to more well-known receptors and receptor classes the article is relatively neglected (it is listed as a start-class article by the molecular biology project).

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

-The introductory sentence gives a good indication of where the receptor class is most expressed as well as its core function of intracellular calcium release, but the focus on its role in muscle contraction cycles does not highlight its broader expression and importance in physiology (ATP production, insulin response etc.)

-Rest of lead is somewhat vague with repeated use of "different" in one sentence, above issue is more or less propagated; the mention of RYR role in calcium-induced calcium release alludes to its importance but appears to give the impression that this function only appears in RYR2

-lead should clarify isoforms based on type of organism (mammal vs (in)vertebrate)

- Important ligands for the receptor are not mentioned nor is its role in disease (though somewhat described later in the article) alluded to in the lead.

-No information about history of discovery or how this relates to the etymology of the receptor, nor source for etymology claim

-Physiology section seems to focus more on role of calcium in signaling than on receptor itself or relevant pathways; similarity to IP3 receptor unclear

-associated proteins section bare, could be merged with physiology section unless more information is provided

-Unnecessary/distracting info about cADP-Ribose activation mechanism

-Ryanodine interaction/mechanism and effects could be more detailed given it is the namesake for the receptor

-Role of receptor and Calcium signaling in diabetes not mentioned at all in disease role section,

-disease section in general only talks about associations with diseases and not mechanisms - malignant hyperthermia article (linked to) has more information about RYR receptor role than the article itself

-structure section doesn't really describe different domains and is somewhat speculative

-Regarding writing and organization, it could use some cleanup regarding proliferation of vague terms like "multitude", "invaluable", etc., and structure section should be expanded upon + moved higher up in article

-Only image in article is an organic structure of the ligand for which it is named with no other description; article should at minimum have a representative structure of the protein.

-possible chart showing location within cell and activity of calcium signaling pathway would be helpful

-most recent source in article is from January 2020 and only relates to a single sentence about a case study. Second most recent source is from 2015 so surely there is more recent information.

-source [10] links to dead page

-some of these sources allude to role in pancreas and insulin signaling but this information is not translated to the article

-talk page has not had non-bot activity since 2014

-overall, the article is not inaccurate, poorly written or sourced; very good about sourcing from reputable journal sources. It gives indications as to the importance of the receptor, but the omission of key areas gives an incomplete picture of its physiological role. Tone is fine other than some inclusion of speculative/not verified roles (probably fine). "Housekeeping" work such as language clean-up and inclusion of standard structure/genome location would improve completeness - "underdeveloped" as-is.