Wikipedia:Peer review/Synaptic gating/archive1

Synaptic gating
This peer review discussion has been closed. I really liked the diseases section, theories of how synaptic gating can result in ADHD and schizophrenia. I can imagine that sources for such information are hard to find but as the site suggests, more citations and details are encouraged. You have to keep in mind that the general public may read this article as well. I think you can do a better job explaining terms and mechanisms. At least, you can create links for the terms so that people can have direct access when they need to refer to them. I am interested in biochemistry and would like to see specific examples regarding modulations. What is the gating signal and what molecule in the neuron allows it to play the gatekeeper role? Again, I can imagine that information is hard to find but I'm sure there are research on the topic (like the Gate theory of pain) that cover potential molecules that play important role. Maybe you can add a history section that briefly describe past research and what conclusions, if any, each research was able to reach. Also, I don't quite understand the biological AND gate and would like to see an explanation of it. Thanks, Young B. (talk)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, but it may be a bit too technical currently for the average reader. Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * The lead needs to follow WP:LEAD better and provide an accessible overview. As WP:LEAD says in part "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. As it is though, the NMDA and AMPA glutamate receptors are only in the lead.
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Schizophrenia and ADHD are not in the lead (though they are two sections)
 * I would avoid saying "see also" in the lead - try to work the link in more naturally. Links can also be piped so that a somewhat different version of the text still leads to the same link- if you are not sure how to do this, please ask on my talk page.
 * The article needs more references. For example, the Modulation of interneurons section has no (zero) refs.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * I would probably include some background information on neurons, how they function, and how they form circuits. This would help to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
 * The headers do not follow WP:HEAD - avoid repeating the name of the article in a header if at all possible. So "Syaptic gating and disease" could just be "Relation to disease" or "Role in disease" - the reader already know this is an article about synaptic gating
 * The Current and future research secion is one sentence that basically says no one knows what causes this (or at least the bistability of neurons). I would combine this with another section - it adds little to the article to have it as its own section.
 * Any chance for some free images - perhaps some of the neuron or neuron circuit images might work? Or even a logical gate diagram?
 * Article is pretty short, so not much else to say - try to find other articles to link it to in order to get rid of the Orphan tag.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)