Talk:Cyclic nucleotide–gated ion channel

message: --Songforsunshine5 (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

message: Awesome article guys, I think you are definitely on the right track and you have already reached a "C" rating which is really great. Here are just a few suggestions:
*You mention that cyclic nucleotides activate CNG channels, but maybe you could include a more specific list.
*The "Function" section is a little choppy; try to make the writing flow rather than just listing the facts.
*The "Structure" section is great! Careful with jargon, though--try to include more hyperlinks (especially in the first paragraph in the section)
*In the "CNG channel family" section:
**The second sentence has a small typo (there is a space before the period)
**Maybe try to break up the first paragraph so that it is easier to read
**All of the information from this section is drawn from a single source. Your article would be stronger if you could find multiple sources that support the same idea or bring additional detail into the explanation. This is also sort of a general comment for the rest of your article, since you tend to rely heavily on a smaller number of sources instead of drawing information from a variety of sources.
*Try to look into more of the current/future research about these channels so that you can expand upon the final section.
Good luck! Stempera (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-peer review

message: I just noticed two things. First, I noticed a typo under Structure and Function. It says NCG channel instead of CNG. Second, under General Function, I think the statement "Many studies have shown CNG channels in rod and cone receptors" could use a citation. Referring to When and why to cite sources, citing this would show the material is not original research and/or help others find more information. Overall, the article is well-written and easy to understand. Mdac927 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: I noticed that you used the word “soon” in the Discovery section; this is a relative time reference that is one of the “words to watch” according to Wikipedia. If the exact month or year is available, you could replace the word “soon” with the specific time of discovery. 
After proofreading the Alpha Subunits, Beta Subunits and Pore subsections of the Structure and Function section, I noticed that there is a misplaced quotation mark next to the Beta Subunits title. Also, the Pore subsection uses the word “exists” when it should read “exits.”
I may have misinterpreted this, but in the “In the Gonads” subsection of the Structure and Function section, your article seems to imply that CNG channels are located in the gonads, but according to the Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Wikipedia page, GnRH is released from the hypothalamus. 
In the Family of CNG Channels subsection, you give some interesting information on disorders resulting from mutated genes. I think that you should consider giving these disorders their own section in the article so that it stands independent of the Family of CNG Channels subsection. This could make your article even more focused. 
In the Future Research section, you mention that technological advances have made it possible to study the role of CNG channels in areas other than sight and smell. Out of curiosity, what are these technological advances? 
Good work! This article is filled with detail and covers a broad range of topics. I especially like that although it is specific, it is not difficult to read. 
-Reedich (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 2

message: Great job with your very specific topic. One thing I would like to see is more information in your opening paragraph. You could add a brief overview of its structure and function, just to give readers a quick summary of the channel and its importance. 
Also, in the Discovery section some more discussion of the tissues the CNG channels were found in via molecular cloning. 
In the General function section, the acronyms CNG, CGN and GNC were all used. They may be typos that could just use some quick editing, but if not then just clarify their meaning to avoid confusion.
I also feel that the Significance in plants section could be moved into the end of the Physiological significance section, it seems to flow better to include them with the animal significance. 
The section on the structural configuration of the channel was thorough and well-written. 
Lastly, only the first word in each heading should be capitalized. 
Great work overall on the article! Like the reviewer above, I found it simple to read about your specific topic. Polvinod (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 3

message: Great job! 
I know it is not directly your topic, but some of the sources I read through described the existence of hyperpolarization-activated CNG channels, maybe you would want to mention them or include a brief discussion.  
I think it would look better if you bolded the general topic headings like “Discovery” and “Genera Function” and leave the more specific topics such as “Pore” and “C-Linker” unbolded. (or you could just bold/unbold everything). Either way it will look great. Also, if is possible to increase the size you your first figure, it’s kind of hard to read. A more descriptive figure legend could be helpful too. 
Do inhibitors of these channels exist? Or even better are there any toxins that are known to block these channels?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenv (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 4

message: Overall the article was really well done. I just have a few points that I believe can be improved:
1. For the amount of material on the page there aren't very many sources, which could be interpreted as there is not much known outside of what these papers uncovered, is this true?
2. I think there needs to be more hyperlinking to other wikipedia articles within the article since many of the terms are not self-explanatory or common knowledge. An example of this is a P-loop.
3. The functions in the kidney are interesting, is more known about it there than is listed because this section seems rather short.
4. Maybe reference current research that is going on about them in the future research section instead of only what some future research suggestions are.
5. This sentence is a bit awkward: "The four identical subunits sacrifice a single P region loop from selectivity filter in the open state."
I hope these help, good luck editing. Let me know if you have any questions for me!
--Liepa (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 5 

message: Nice start so far. You guys did a great job with finding detailed information on your topic. A suggestion I would have would be to follow the introduction with the 'General Function', such that you give the general function of the channel after a general summary of it. Also, the introduction seems a little short. If you could summarize the information you present in a simple way, that would help to lengthen your introduction. I also liked your multiple use of inner-links to other pages, it definitely helps to clarify a lot of details that would otherwise be confusing. Great Job! Lucas (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 6 

message: Great work on the article!  I thought you guys did an excellent job, going into a lot of informative detail and clearly explaining what a CNG is and its function.  I really liked the organization of this article too--this really helped to facilitate understanding a topic with which I am unfamiliar.  I do have a few suggestions that might improve the quality of your article.  First, I would change the subdivisions "In Spermatozoa," "In Kidney," and "In Gonads" (under Physiological Significance) to "Spermatozoa," "Kidneys" or "Kidney Function," and "Gonads."  This is more consistent with the other titles found in this section and better conforms to Wikipedia standards.  Another suggestion I have would be to break up the "Family of CNG Channels" section into multiple subsections.  Currently, the lengthy paragraph, though interesting, seems somewhat verbose.  If divided into smaller sections, such as utilizing "CNGA" and "CNGB" as points of division, may make this section easier to follow.  Besides these recommendations, I thought this article was really well-done. Excellent job! Jinhl (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 7

message: — Assignment last updated by Ekpaul (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 378 - Biochemistry Lab - spring 2023