Talk:Satellite glial cell/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to review this article. Judging from the talk page Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Biology and Medicine noms deriving from university assignment and recent contributions the nominator might not be active. If someoone is willing to address or at least respond to any concerns that I raise I will do an in depth review. If not I will review it as either a quick pass as it currently is or fail it. Will leave a note at WP:MEDS, nominators talk page and the articles talk page. It looks in pretty good knick so hopefully someone can adopt it if necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to come back to the article in order to make the article a Good Article. I haven't been on Wikipedia, just as you seem to have guessed, because the assignment is over and it is now summer vacation. That being said, I would still like to get it up to the Good article status. LaurenMalishchak (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I will give it a thorough review. First impressions tell me it looks good. AIRcorn (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments

Nice article. It does a good job of explaining SGCs. It's unfortunate that no picture was available as it would have greatly enhanced the article. My major concern with an article like this is to make it accessible to the general reader. Sometimes that is not possible, but the use of wikilinks does make it easier. My suggestion would be to wikilink any technical term that you can. If something can't be wikilinked a short non-technical explanation in brackets might suffice. An example would be "...cells in sensory ganglia are laminar cells (flattened cells) that most...". Some might benefit from an extra sentence, especially if they are important to understanding the subject e.g., perineuronal processes. If possible it might even be useful to use less technical terms that have the same meaning. ~~Instead of "cellular environment" maybe just use "within the cell".~~

Not a good example. AIRcorn (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as wikilinking goes my preference is to wikilink everything once in the lead, everything once in the body, everything once in pictures, and everything once in each table. That is because this roughly corresponds with what people read, i.e. some will just skim the lead, others will skip the lead and start straight onto the body, while others will just look at the tables/pictures. There is no hard and fast rule on this however and as far as the good article criteria goes it is not required, but I think it might help the reader. As a whole most of the terms are well wikilinked, but there are a few words where I think it they could be added.

Also avoid the use of potentially ambiguous times, i.e currently, now, yet, future etc. This is because the article will hopefully survive for a long time and, especially with these types of articles, the research could move so fast that something that is not "yet" available might be in a year or two. Where posible use "as of 2011" or something similar so it will still be accurate in 2020. Also if you wish to continue contributing there is an easy way to add journal references. Simply add <ref>{{cite doi|?????????}}</ref> (????? is the doi of the journal article). A bot should then fill in the rest. Not all work and not all journals have them, but on the whole it saves a lot of time. There is something similar with the pmid.

I have made some general comments next to each of the criteria, and have gone into more detail on individual sentences under comments. I tend to treat all my points as negotiable, although some will be less than others, so if you disagree or are unable to comply with any just leave a comment under it and we can discuss it further. Also if any of my comments are not quite clear let me know. I knew nothing about glial cells before starting this, so a lot of my comments are ways in which I think they could have been explained better. The major concern in terms of the GA is the lead. It needs to be expanded to provide a better overview of the topic.

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lead needs expanding. Some minor prose issues under comments.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Good references
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused): }
Good
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

The lead should basically summarise everything in the article as well as being able to stand alone. For an article this size it should be at least two to three paragraphs. My general rule of thumb is to at least mention each section in the lead. Also nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body of the article. There are exceptions to this and if some important information will not fit elsewhere it is usually okay to have it solely in the lead. Since it summarises everything that is in the body you usually don't need to reference the information (exceptions are quotes and anything that is likely to be challenged)
I would add a few more sentances about the anatomy. It would be good to have a description of them in the lead. The roles in health should also be expanded on a little too. A paragraph on each (anatomy, function, health) with a sentence on research at the end would be perfect. If you can only get two paragraphs out of it that would be fine too.
The last sentence is a little problematic. There is much more to be learned about these cells, and research surrounding additional properties and roles of the SGCs is ongoing. It is a bit essayish. Maybe it can be reworded?

Anatomy

Each side of the cell body extends outward, forming perineuronal processes. As there is no wikilink to perineuronal processes could a simple sentence be used to describe what they are?
Despite their flattened shape..... The flattened shape is not really mentioned before this. Maybe more could be said in first paragraph as to their form. Also would it be possible to split this paragraph to make it match the others in the section better? Or I guess you could combine the two small ones.
The plasma membrane of SGCs is thin and not very dense, and it is associated with adhesion molecules, receptors for neurotransmitters and other molecules, and ion channels, specifically potassium ion channels. Would consider rewording this slightly so that "receptors for neurotransmitters and other molecules" is mentioned last and possibly put "specifically potassium ion channels" in brackets. This could make it clearer what is being referred to.
The cilium, however, only has the nine pairs of peripheral microtubules while it lacks the axial pair of microtubules, making its structure very similar to the cilia of neurons, Schwann cells, and astrocytes of the CNS. It is not obvious why this is important. Wikilink Schwann cells and astrocytes. Would spell out and link CNS this first time.
Satellite glial cells in sensory ganglia are laminar cells that most often lack any true processes extending from the cell body. That most often? Would it be better to simply say "often"? What are laminar cells? Are they just flattened cells?
This indicates that the SGCs play a role in the synaptic environment, thereby influencing synaptic transmission. Does this have a reference?
Many people liken SGCs to the astrocytes of the CNS because they share certain anatomical and physiological properties, such as the presence of neurotransmitter transporters and the expression of glutamine synthetase. Many people is ambiguous. Can it be made clearer who these people are.
SGCs most often surround individual sensory and parasympathetic neurons with a complete, unbroken sheath while most neurons of sympathetic ganglia lack a completely continuous SGC sheath Not sure how this or the next dentences relate to differences between astrocytes and SCGs? It may not be the intention, but as the paragraph starts by comparing them to astrocytes I was expecting this to relate to them.
Although SGCs express glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP)[20]and different S-100 proteins,[21] the most useful marker available today for SGC identification is glutamine synthetase (GS) Edits here are not obviously dated unless you look up the history, so saying today, currently, now etc is usually avoided. It is better to say something like "as of ..."

Function

Additionally, SGCs contain the glutamate related enzymes glutamate dehydrogenase and pyruvate carboxylase, and thus can supply the neurons not only with glutamine, but also with malate and lactate. Lactate leads to a disambiguation page.
Unlike their adjacent neurons, SGCs do not have synapses but are equipped with receptors for a variety of neuroactive substances that are analogous to those found in neurons Earlier it is said that SGCs in the sympathetic gangelia receive synapses. So I assume this means that they just do not send synapses?
The research is ongoing and SGCs role in injury repair mechanisms is not yet fully understood. Needs a ref and should be dated (similar argument to using today). Same goes for the current in the previous sentence
Would consider wikilinking each term the first time (even if it is linked previously) and maybe even spelling out IHC, TG, DRG etc. I would not spell out the proteins though. If it will make the table look messy they can be kept as acronyms.

Roles in health issues

SCGs have specifically been implicated in a new role involving the creation and persistence of chronic pain, which may involve hyperalgesia and other forms of spontaneous pain. I think this can be said a bit more simply. I had to re-read it a few times before I understood what was meant. Are specifically and role needed? IThey appear redundant. Same with new? It won't be new in a few years. "SCGs have been implicated in the creation and persistence of chronic pain,..." If correct is much simpler and goes straight to the point.
Neurotrophins and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) are other cellular factors that work to sensitize neurons to pain Are these released by SCGs too? If so might pay to say that. If not I am not sure why they are mentioned.
Additionally, several research groups have found that SGC coupling increases after nerve damage, which has an effect on the perception of pain, likely for several reasons. As far as I can tell only one reason is presented. Might be better to not say for several reasons?
Normally, the gap junctions between SGCs are used in order to redistribute potassium ions between adjacent cells. Is in order redundant?
However, in coupling of SGCs, the number of gap junctions greatly increases. Doesn't read right. In coupled SGCs? When SGCs couple?
The increased levels of glutamate lead to over excitation and an increase in nociception. What do you mean by over excitation? An increase in activity?? What is getting over excited?
The receptor has been implicated in the release of interleukin IL-1β from macrophages or microglia and astrocytes. This could have two meanings depending on how the or is interpreted. 1) They are released from either macrophages or microglia as well as astrocytes. 2) They are released from just the macrophages or both the microglia and astrocytes. Might need rewording to make clear which is meant.
...making it a non-ideal target when using pharmacological strategy Probably a bit too complicated and ambiguous way of saying "making it not an ideal pharmaceutical drug target". Could add "or for other pharmacological strategies" on the end if there is more to it than drugs.
SGCs also express a specific type of channel, the Kir4.1 channel, which works to maintain the desired low extracellular K+ concentration in order to control hyperexcitability, which is known to cause migraines I assume you mean ion channel? Could this sentence be spilt into two to make it more readable? Also instead of K+ could the first use include potassium ion. Wikilink and potassium ion if they are correct.

Research directions

In the future, researchers plan to give more time and attention to the SGCs, which have many supportive and protective functions essential for life. Future won't be the future in a couple of years.
Finally, the possibility of an influence of SGCs on synaptic transmission within autonomic ganglia provides another direction for future research. Ditto

Possible wikilinks that have not been mentioned

purinoceptors, Microglia, antagonist, organelles, extracellular space, neurotransmitter transporters, Neurotransmitter receptor
The ones linked in the lead could be relinked in the body (it is a long way time before we get to herpes simplex
Wikitionary cross-space links: homomultimer heteromultimer

Thanks for the review, Aircorn- I will get working on these changes ASAP. Just wanted to let you know that at the current moment, I am studying for an entrance exam and will be unable to make the changes for about 2 weeks. After that, I will attempt to fix everything possible! 70.22.62.165 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will give it a couple more days, otherwise I will have to fail it. The lead probably requires the most work, the rest is reasonably minor. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failing due to no edits since review started. AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]