User talk:Medstudentleigh/Sigma-2 Receptor

Feedback
Really nice work expanding the Sigma-2 receptor article. I have a few thoughts on how the draft could be improved.


 * The lead section could be a bit longer. If you read the Manual of Style for lead sections you'll see that the lead section should summarize all the major elements of the article.


 * It would be very helpful if you could use citation templates for your references. If you look at the top of the edit window (the place you type text after you hit 'edit') you should see the word 'Cite' on the toolbar. Click on that, selected appropriate template from the drop-down menu, and fill it in as best you can. Doing that creates a better formatted reference, and one that it easier to maintain in the long run. It also allows you to use DOIs, which help create permanent links to the sources. You might also want to use more intuitive names for your references - names like "one", "two" and "three" are difficult to interpret and will get confusing, especially as the article evolves over the next ten or twenty years.Finally, it's always better to use the full name of a journal instead of an abbreviated name. While these work fine for people who are familiar with the literature, they can be baffling for the average reader (which is, of course, the target reader for a Wikipedia article).


 * One of your references, Skuza (2003) is both rather old and discusses preliminary findings ("Potential Antidepressant Activity..."). It would be much better if you used a more recent source. Does Skuza (2012), which appears to be more of a review article, not discuss the same things in more depth, or in a broader context? And if later reviews don't discuss the findings in the earlier paper, why not? It's often a bit of a red flag if someone presents "potential" findings and then doesn't discuss them in later publications. That's a hint that maybe they didn't pan out.


 * Finally, I was wondering about the File:PET scans of brain tumor using Sigma-2 Ligands.png image. It comes from PLOS ONE; their work is licensed under a CC-BY-2.5 licence, but when you uploaded the file, you tagged it as CC-0, in other words, not subject to copyright. I can't figure out the basis for that difference.

I don't want my feedback to sound too critical - you've made a really substantial improvement to that article, a really nice body of work. But it would be much better with these improvements. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Improvements

 * The references have been completely revamped using the citing tool and have been given new tags.
 * The image I uploaded was indeed from PLOS ONE and if you follow the link I provided on the specific page I located the file there is a CC-0 tag. I feel confident that this is the tag to use over CC-BY-2.5 because the latter is for the website in general and the former is for the specific article the image is from
 * Regarding the Skuza reference, I believe we only used information from that article that was foundational in a sense. Meaning, we used information the article provided that is fact-based, ie the receptor has not been cloned (which is still true). Skuza 2003 is cited in combination with other articles in many cases which I think indicates that the information we included on the page is still legitimate. We will however, search for more up-to-date sources to corroborate Skuza info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medstudentleigh (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)