Talk:Amyloid plaques

message: I moved the following formation and description section to the talk page, as it's largely incoherent and I don't feel qualified to clean it properly. Some of the info could be reintegrated into the article. Robotsintrouble 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Great job on the article.  I especially liked the illustrations you were able to include.  I agree with other reviewers and I think the order of the paragraphs should be changed.  I also noticed that there are only 7 paragraphs and 10 are required by the rubric.  I am not sure if you have already discussed this with our professor.  Additionally, in the sentence "From an age of 60 years (10%) to an age of 80 years (60%) the proportion ..." I think there should be sources included directly for the percentages provided.  ECBMilwaukee (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: *Writing - Overall, the article was well written. The language was very technical but appeared to be utilized accurately. I also have a few grammatical and formatting changes to suggest:
**Remove the banner for inline citations at the top of the page. This is now out of date.
**In the initial description, I would alter the sentence "These deposits can also be a byproduct of senescence, or biological aging, however large numbers of senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles are characteristic features of Alzheimer's disease." To read "These deposits can be a byproduct of senescence; however, large numbers of senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles are also characteristic features of Alzheimer's disease."
**Under Formation and Description, remove the apostrophes on BOTH "exon's" (change to "exons") - neither of these are possessive.  I would also put an enter after this sentence ("This region comprises part of exons 16 and 17 of the 18 exons spanning the gene contained on the Amyloid Precursor Protein.")to create a new paragraph.
**Also under Formation and Description, I agree with Gfolan that "is" should be inserted in the sentence after "(BASE)" to read "β-secretase (BACE) is analogous..."
**Under Occurrence, a comma needs to be inserted in the sentence "From an age of 60 years (10%) to an age of 80 years (60%)>>,<< the proportion of people with plaques increases approximately linearly."
**Under History, there is a period missing from the end of the sentence "The formation and the distribution of the pathological neurofibrillaries have a regularity>>.<<"
**The last sentence under history should be connected to the sentence before it with a comma to be "identification of beta amyloid, but there..."
**The words "pathological neurofibrillaries, tangles, and atrophic brain with hydrocephalus" are repeated under both History and Disease. I would suggest rephrasing or removing it from one of the categories.
**Under Research, I would split "An increasing variety of compounds that reduce beta amyloid levels are being identified, several have beta amyloid 42 selectivity whereas others attempt to modulate amyloid precursor protein." into two sentences at the comma. 
*Verifiable with no original research - I checked the source "The role of amyloid beta peptide 42 in Alzheimer's disease".  It was a reliable secondary medical source from Pubmed and all the information the authors cited to this source from the article was present. The citation was formatted correctly. I would not suggest using any further information from the article, well done.
*Broad in coverage - The topic was well covered. Very in-depth and thorough. The "See also" category is a nice touch!
*Neutral - Yes, great job on this.
*Illustrated - The images used were well chosen and enhance the appearance of the page.
CK3501 (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Review

message: The article was well written but somewhat hard to understand. The paragraph about the formation of the senile plaques would be extremely hard to follow for anyone that does not understand the biochemistry behind the process. I would suggest attempting to make that paragraph more understandable for those without background in science. The organization of your paragraphs is also a bit confusing. The history paragraph seem to come out of no where and although it reads well it feels out of place. It would probably fit better earlier in the article leaving the more science related articles bunched together. Tnasci1313 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: Very good article. As some other reviews have mentioned, it is a bit technical. However, due to the nature of the subject I think that's probably to be expected. Also, since the article links out to many different pages, anything that is not understood can be found on another wiki page (which is how wikipedia is supposed to work). I thought the pictures were well chosen. There were only a couple things I wasn't sure about. In the "Occurrence" section, are the first three sentences covered by the citation after the fact about gender differences? If not, some citations for those claims may be welcome. Also, would it maybe make more sense to have the "formation and description" topic before "identification", since most people who come to the page are just going to be looking for a description of the topic? Anyway, I thought the article was very well done.  Xc stallion92 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: I did not really find anything wrong with the article that was not already mentioned. The formation of plaques section is definitely very technical. I think that including some descriptions about what is being talked about would be very useful. The first sentence of this section “Concentrated in the synapse of neurons is an Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) which is a type I integral transmembrane protein” is a great example of what you can do to make it easier to read. It is a short article but I think it is very concise and delivers the information well so I wouldn’t stress about adding extra paragraphs just to hit the 10 paragraph limit. The history section can be moved to the top. Overall, this was very well done. Good job on putting in those images. Alphabetfood (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: After reading the article, here are a few suggestions to consider when revising:
* As previous reviewers have noted, I would organize the paragraphs a little differently to make it flow better.  For example, have history as one of the first paragraphs and maybe have identification close by the disease section
* Along with organizing the paragraphs a little bit, is there any information in the prevention of Senile plagues, as well as, possible solutions in restricting their spread if they do occur?
* I like the images that correlate with the article and I think they do a great job of displaying examples for the reader.
* If possible, try to make the Formation and Description section a little easier to read.  It's hard with such a complex issue but may make it easier for a non-science individual to read.
Cdrellishak (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: Overall the article is well written, particularly considering how late you guys decided on a topic.  In some cases you used words that while accurate, may make the reading of the article more difficult.  I have done some really minor editing to make it more readable.  Hopefully I was able to understand your meaning so that I didn't change that with my edits.
Did you really read an article in German or did you find a translation of it?
MMBiology (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Faculty Review

message: What's the diference between senile plaques and amyloid plaques? Are they the same? This should be explained in the article.--Miguelferig (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Senile/amyloid plaques

message: Is there a credible study or review that debunked theory that amyloids that cause Alzheimer's disease could be transmissible and infective? I've found one such article that makes this claim (it refers to a primary study):  (primary article ). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infective Amyloids 

message: There has been quite some noise in the last few years, and some media attention lately, to the complete lack of efficacy of Alzheimer treatments based on the amyloid plaque hypothesis. The history section should reflect these developments and there should perhaps be another section about the controversy surrounding this. Phiarc (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article from Science claiming cheating should perhaps be mentioned? https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease 51.175.139.211 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent developments "exposing" amyloid plaque research