# Talk:Systemin

Should this be added to the {Plant_hormones} stub template?  --Mashford 19:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Systemin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I'll review this in the next few days Rockpocket 17:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I'm still working on this. I'll write the full review in the next day or so, but it looks very good on first read-through. Rockpocket 23:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Very well written, MoS compliant and impressively accessible for a specialist subject
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
References seem fine and there are no OR issues. There are a couple of sections that could do with a little more inline referencing, particularly the first paragraph in Signal transduction and the Abiotic stress resistance section. I'm guessing the reference cited at the end of each paragraph covers most of the material in that section, but it would be nice to see them cited inline a bit more often. Especially at the end of a sentence that mentions a specific study or finding.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Comprehensive. I'm a little torn on the amount of detail on HypSys and AtPEP1, when the subject of the article is systemin. To keep it more focused, the detail on HypSys and AtPEP1 could be spun off into their own articles with summaries and {{see also}}s in this article. But on the other hand, they are clearly homologous (to some extent) and there isn't a whole lot known about them, so I can understand covering all three in together here. I've passed it as is, because I think this sort of thing is very much as matter of opinion and I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. In time, as the literature on each of the protein sub-families grows, the argument for splitting will probably become more convincing.
I admit this is a bit confusing. Reference 1 is the most recent published review on these proteins and they lumped them together as systemins and atpeps so it makes sense to have them in the same article, since they serve similar functions. The article's based on some coursework I wrote, and I came up with a name to lump them all together but obviously I can't include that here. Smartse (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The paper which discovered atpeps states "The chemical and physiological properties of the AtPep1 family members, their precursor proteins, and their genes are strikingly similar to the properties of the 18-aa peptide signal systemin, its precursor prosystemin, and its gene, which are components of the signaling pathway for defense against herbivorous pests of the Solanaceae family" which to me is reason enough to include them in the same article. Smartse (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think your reasoning makes sense. I was wondering whether there might be a collective term for them also; perhaps one may be published one day, then we could move the article to that term. Rockpocket 09:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No problem here, does a good job of covering different conclusions without bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No edit-warring.
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): 
Nice illustrations.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Overall this is article is great, and there are only a few minor issues stopping me promoting immediately. If these could be addressed, it would be a pleasure to promote it:
See 2.b above
I've added some more inline citations to these sections to make it clear that they've come from the same papers as the rest of the paragraph. Smartse (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
TomSys. It wasn't entirely clear to me what it means, I assume it refers to the systemin from tomato? If not, could you correctly define it on first use? If it is, some sections use the terms while others says "system from tomato". I would suggest sticking with one way of referring to it to avoid confusion.
That's right. TomSys isn't used until Systemin#Receptors but I've defined it there. I could add it earlier on, or just use tomato systemin throughout, or maybe make something like {{Restriction enzyme glossary}}? Have you got any opinion on which might be best? Smartse (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I decided that tomato systemin is better than tomsys as generally speaking, jargon only complicates reading for the average reader. Smartse (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Rockpocket 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing this, I think everything is dealt with but let me know if there's anything else. Smartse (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats great, I'm happy to pass it now. Congratulations once again on a really nice article. Rockpocket 09:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this a good article, but it does need a bit of correction in the area of grammar: there are many "follow on sentences" (two of more sentences joined by commas rather than full stops). For example, the first two sentences should be four. I know this is probably considered a small point, but it mars an otherwise well written article. David.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.70.23 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)