Talk:Cotransporter

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fphys.2013.00053/full. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Keilana|Parlez ici 07:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: As a project for a Molecular Biology course within JHU's Master of Biotechnology program, a group of us students will be taking on improving this article.  We plan to address specific mechanisms of cotransporters along with defects associated with the basic mechanism.  Any feedback is appreciated.Sridenour (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great! You're with Jamia Hamdard U, Sri?   - RedKnight7 (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No sorry probably should have been clearer, it's Johns Hopkins University.Sridenour (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: JHU Molecular Biology Project

message: :1. Introduction
:2. Background
:3. Structures & Composition
:4. Mechanism
::Antiporters vs Symporters
:5. Malfunction
::Examples of conditions results from mutations
:6. Summary Conclusions
:7. Reference
LutyeusMaximus (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some content under the background section, work in progress.Igenes (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some content under the mechanism section covering conformational changes, and turnover rate.  I added subsections for Antiporters and symporters and will be adding additional info about each LutyeusMaximus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed New Structure for Article 

message: Hi guys, great work so far! If you have any questions about my review, please do ask on my talk page or ask here and link my username so I'm notified. I'm happy to walk you through fixing anything!
* The article really needs a lead. Our guidelines for lead sections are here, but basically it is just an introduction that summarizes what is to come in the article. It doesn't need citations as long as everything you are summarizing is cited. The section you have as "introduction" would be an okay lead but it should begin with defining what cotransporters are.
:I've edited this section to remove the introduction header and just make the first paragraph the lead.  I will try to look at the wording a bit more to help make it a more suitable lead.Sridenour (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to let Seth and Harshil know that I will work on this tonight.Sridenour (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried editing the first citation and cannot seem to get the formatting correct.  Also, if I remove it I get an error since it is a named reference that is used further in the article.  If anyone has any suggestions or if any members of my group want to give this a look I would greatly appreciate it.Sridenour (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Once again, will do this as well.Sridenour (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a caption to describe the basic point of the picture.Sridenour (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

text:  The background section has been rewritten.Igenes (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

text: this has been fixed LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Keilana 

message: * Just to add onto what what Keilana has stated, Good job so far on the article. It seems as though you are taking time to carefully develop the content for each section. This will definitely help you focus on each section so that enough information is provided. I will add that sections 2.1 and 2.2 may need to be placed under a different heading. Maybe consider Types of Co-transporters. If the mechanisms for the two different types are different, then you can restructure the mechanism section after you have talked about the two types. I am not sure how much content will be added to the antiporters and symporters section, but it will be great to see examples of where these systems work as well as supporting images. The image that you have there already is good as it quickly tells us what is going on. I just hope it is not too simplified.
* Based on the material that has been put thus far, there is adequate wiki-linking. What about linking the transporter to the page for membrane transport protein?
:Good idea with linking the transporter in the lead.  Sridenour (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Mtee87 

message: 1. Lead Section
a) Would it be better to start the lead section with something like “The cotransporter is a protein …”?
::I re-worded the intro to have cotransporter in the first sentence.Sridenour (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also added some more info to cover the dual movement of cotransporters as opposed to the singular movement of molecules that occurs with uniporters.  Let me know if you think this is a better explanation.Sridenour (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed the background section, created a History section and moved it to the bottom of the article. Igenes (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

text:  I made some edits and added more content, made a sub head 'Discovery of Cotransporters'.Igenes (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I linked transporters to their corresponding wiki page in hopes to allow the reader to look further into them if they wish.Sridenour (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I will clarify this LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I thought of this after writing, I will go back and clarify LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Good idea, will do LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Birdy0124 

message: You guys have done a good job.  Here are a few comments/suggestions.
* I think the opening sentence is a little too technical.  Could you think of a more gentle definition for the lay reader (non-biologist)?
* I find this confusing: "transporters are one of three main classes of integral membrane proteins that move molecules and ions across biomembranes".  To me, it sounds like you are saying that there are three classes of integral membrane proteins, and that transporters are one such class.  I had to read it several times before I realized that you are instead saying that any given transporter molecule falls into one of these three classes.  Maybe it is just me.
::I worked on the wording in this section so let me know if this seems clearer. Sridenour (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Image edited and re-uploaded LutyeusMaximus (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Seth that looks really good, thanks for taking care of that.Sridenour (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Added wikilink Sridenour (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I added this in the first paragraph under about so check if it seems placed correctly. Sridenour (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added wikilinks where possible Sridenour (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Removed subheading Sridenour (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Klortho 

message: You have done a great job of adding some additional information to the page; it definitely looks a step up from the previous version.  Here are my suggestions for improvement and/or questions I have regarding the page.  
* In the Lead Section:
** As it is written, the lead section seems a bit difficult to comprehend- particularly the first sentence.  Something simple such as “Cotransporters are a subcategory of transporters that move two different types….” may be easier for the average person to follow.  You wikilinked the second use of the word transporter, but I think it may be more appropriate to wikilink the first use of it.  Since uniporters are not considered cotransporters, is it necessary to even mention them in the article?
::Fixed the wikilinking of transporter and reworded the first sentence some.  I would like to leave in the distinction for uniporters since they are a main class of transporters.Sridenour (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go through and remove some of the redundant wikilinks.Sridenour (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did remove the discussion here about uniporters. Sridenour (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Added wikilinks to the above where possible Sridenour (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added wikilinks where possible Sridenour (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Decided to just remove the subheading but leave 'History' Sridenour (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Edited to Carbon fixation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igenes (talk • contribs) 04:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to say that you all have done a great job with your article!  The page looks really good! Jfitz1974 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Jfitz1974. 

message: This is a great page!
Main:
The wording seems succinct and straight forward to me.
About:
I think there's a typo: Cotransporters can "we" classified as uniporters, antiporters and symporters.
Is there a nomenclature on how a transporter is named?
::This sentence was removed Sridenour (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added links where possible Sridenour (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Review by chandler.c.ho

message: I'm going to fix things from the sections I initially edited.  Then I will go back and look at the lead paragraph since it seems to be getting some criticism.  Also, Harshil, I really like the table you made. That is great. I also like the history section, just wondering if we should move it up higher in the article? what do you guys think? Not sure if we should put anything under that large table, I feel like it gets forgotten about.  Also what about that table at the very bottom about membrane transport proteins and ion pumps, I think we could just get rid of that now that we have a good table on the diseases, thoughts?  I will updated on changes again after I make them! LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seth, you have a valid point on the History section. I initially had the History section on the top and then moved it down after one of the reviewers (Birdy0124) suggested. However, I am happy to have it higher than where it is right now. Also, do you think we should add more content in the 'Disease associated with Cotransporter' or just have the table there. I'll go and change some minor stuff that has been suggested by the reviewers.Igenes (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I missed where someone suggested to move it down.  I guess it is ultimately up to us.  I personally think it gets lost way down there.  As far as adding to the diseases section we can.  I was thinking we should definitely wiki-link the table as much as possible, but I was thinking we could add a section on cystic fibrosis since that is the most known disease associated with a cotransporter, but I was sure if this would just be redundant since there is such a good wikipedia article about cystic fibrosis already?  Not sure, let me know what you guys think?LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes in the intro paragraph and am planning on removing some of the redundant wikilinks.  I also added a sentence that was suggested by Klortho into the about section in the first paragraph.  I think the history should be above the tables and perhaps we can just add a sentence in the disease section stressing cystic fibrosis as being a well studied disease associated with cotransporter malfunction and add the link to the See Also section.  What do you think. Sridenour (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea, and I like the first sentence clarification.  I am going to try and edit the image we have to add a bracket below the image labeling the antiporter and sympoter as costransporters LutyeusMaximus (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Guys! I just wanted to add that there has been a major improvement since the first time i reviewed the article. I really like the table that links the diseases to different transporter names. It adds more content to a subject that is already so particular. It is also great that you have the separated images into the sections where you are describing each cotransporter. The only question/thought I had was with the history/Discovery section, and its position in the article. I wondered if you could move it to a place between the about section and the mechanism section. I thought something telling about discovery should be one of the earlier sections. Sincerely Mtee87 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Updates after second reviews 

message: You guys have written a nice article! The organization and flow are very clear. I can offer some very minor suggestions:
# Rather than linking to the general "transporters" topic in the lead, which takes the user to a page from which he or she must navigate to the appropriate topic, how about linking directly to "membrane transport proteins"?
::Thanks for the suggestion Don, I edited the wikilink as suggested.Sridenour (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct and thanks for the good catch. Sridenour (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried wikilinking as much as possible and also did not wikilink anything that had already been linked.  I will try to see if I can find pages related to some of the diseases that do not have their own wikipedia page.Sridenour (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks Don for your valuable feedback, you listed valuable errors that can easily be missed. I edited all the points you listed except the last one. I will work on that.Igenes (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hope you guys don't mind, but rather than list them, I fixed a few minor grammatical errors for you (missing "of" in the lead, etc.). Don Brown (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from donbinincom 

message: hey guys, I am sure you have noticed I am trying to fix the alignment of the headings under "Types of Cotransporters" so that the images line up correctly with each section.  I thought I had solved this using page breaks but bots keep coming through and removing them.  When I look at other articles they don't seem to have any problems but when I look at their wiki code I can't seem to see a difference.  If anyone could offer an idea that would be appreciated, maybe Klortho or Keilana can help?
LutyeusMaximus (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was able to fix the alignment problem, I hope this is how you intended to look like. All I edited was I moved the codes for the pictures under 'Types of Cotransporter' , it was initially under each of the sub-heading 'Antipoters' and 'Symporters' respectively. Igenes (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with fixing headings 

message: Hi guys, great job on this article over the semester! I have a few more comments for you as you work on this the last bit of the semester. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have. 
* You don't need to say that something is discussed later in the article. Just link the term and continue on.
* There is a lot of close paraphrasing throughout that needs to be rewritten. One way to avoid close paraphrasing is to rewrite without looking at the original source. Ping me if you want a full list of everything that needs to be rewritten. (either use  or just post on my talk page.)
* You don't need to refer to Crane with his full name more than once.
::Removed the second full name. Sridenour (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed italics. Sridenour (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Okay, here's a list of parts I think need to be rewritten to be paraphrased appropriately. I definitely suggest you don't look at the original source while you work on this. As I have gone through with a more fine-toothed comb, I've noticed that some of these are directly copied - this is a serious issue on Wikipedia and could lead to you being blocked if you introduce copyrighted content again. I have blanked the history section since all of it is effectively directly copied from the article you cite. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Harshil, I believe this is a section you worked on so could you please rephrase as suggested with guidance from your souce? Sridenour (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Keilana for your valuable feedback, I worked on rephrasing the history section. I hope it is fine this time.Igenes (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Where exactly is this and I'm guessing this needs rephrased as well.Sridenour (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made some changes to that statement. I hope it is corrected now.Igenes (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I worked on this rewording so please let me know if this seems acceptable. Sridenour (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments from Keilana