Talk:T-tubule/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 06:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi PeaBrainC, I'll take up this review. Loving your work so far around here. Good articles are reviewed against 6 criteria (WP:GA?) and I will use these to review the article. I'll first spend a few days familiarising myself with the article and then post my review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made 2-3 small edits to the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some parts lacking citations resolved
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No violations identified; only the usual suspects mirroring WP content.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments resolved
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Well-focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Great selection of images; nil issues
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

A really well-written article, I only have a few comments:

• In general very well-written; images are great and very helpful, references are excellent
• No copyright / image issues identified
• Several sentences lack references:
  • "T-tubules within the heart are closely associated with a region of the sarcoplasmic reticulum known as terminal cisternae. The association of the T-tubule with a terminal cistern is referred to as a dyad." : Done
  • "The sodium-calcium exchanger passively removes one Ca2+ ion from the cell in exchange for three Na+ ions. As a passive process it can therefore allow calcium to flow into or out of the cell depending on the combination of the relative concentrations of these ions and the voltage across the cell membrane (the electrochemical gradient). The Ca2+ATPase removes calcium from the cell actively, using energy derived from adenosine triphosphate (ATP)."  : Done
  • "(for skeletal and cardiac muscle respectively) can be added to the extracellular solution that surrounds the cells. These osmotically active agents cannot cross the cell membrane, and their addition to the extracellular solution causes the cells to shrink. When these agents are withdrawn, the cells rapidly expand and return to their normal size. The rapid expansion causes T-tubules to detach from the surface membrane." : Done
• One main area missing (per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy) is a short 'history' section relating to T-tubules  : DonePeaBrainC (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
• It isn't a requirement for this review, but I think that to improve the readability of this article for a general audience, given its excellent subject matter, several changes could be made (WP:ANATSIMPLIFY).
  • "extracellular/intracellular" -> "fluid outside of the cell; fluid inside the cell"
  • "dyad" -> "pair"
  • cardiomyocytes -> heart muscle cells
  • spelling out SR -> sarcoplasmic reticulum
  • Ca2+ -> "calcium"

 Done Good suggestions re: wording, I have tried to accomodate most of these. I have left "dyad" beacuse as a specific technical term it doesn't translate perfectly as pair. PeaBrainC (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to your response, happy to discuss any of the points above, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tom(LT) - I'll make these amendments ASAP. May take me a few days to research the history section.PeaBrainC (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT) - I hope I've addressed all your comments - what are your thoughts? -- PeaBrainC (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@PeaBrainC looks great, thanks for your responses! Promoted, and well done! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Tom (LT) - looking forward to hear your thoughts. My first time nominating a GA so there's plenty for me to learn! PeaBrainC (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)