Talk:Netrin

message: Hey guys, this looks really great. It's obvious you did a lot of research and understand the topic very well. your article is especially strong because you balance the information you use from a variety of sources. That being said, I just have a few suggestions about your citations:
*In the first paragraph under "Overview of Netrins," you have no reference to where that information came from.
*On a similar note, you note no reference under the heading "Netrin Receptors."
 Make sure you cover all your bases on citing! 
Good luck! And again, really great job so far. Stempera (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-peer review

message: Hey guys, everything looks great, I just had one idea from a course I had taken, Developmental Neuroscience and Behavior.  While everything looks very detailed and informative, it might be good to include a "see also" section that mentions other chemoattractants/repellants such as Slit and it's specific receptor growth cone receptor Robo.  Also, to link the major role of Netrin in developmental neuroscience (specifically during migration as you do mention) a hyperlink to neuronal migration (which I believe would link it to neuronal development might be helpful.  This would connect the section about "axonal guidance" to neuronal migration but not require any further and unnecessary explanation of what neuronal migration is.  Also, our group was informed that only the first letters of each heading need to be capitalized so you might want to go through and use lower case where needed (just check out any other wiki pages) Mtportman (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 1

message: Thanks for the input! we went ahead and added your suggestions to the "see also" section and corrected the capitalization. Thanks! Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Article looks great! I really like the pictures that you guys used, especially the one showing Netrin-1 signaling. Just a couple of things I noticed as far as general editing and typos. In the sentence "There is a high degree of conservation in the second structure of netrins, which has several domains which are homologous domains with laminin at the amino terminal end" in the Overview section, "second structure" should be "secondary structure." The only other thing I could suggest is maybe to link to some of the terms used in the later sections, such as oncogenes and amyloid plaques, to provide readers with an easy way to access these. Overall, excellent, well written and researched article! Quallsk  —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 2

message: We added the hyperlinks and fixed the grammar thanks! Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Your group did an awesome job on this page!
Your introduction is very well done, the body of the article is very detailed, and your incorporation of hyperlinks in appropriate places is great. 
A few nitpicky suggestions:
If you wanted to, you could probably have "Key Netrins" as a subsection of "Overview of Netrins," but that is completely up to you.
In the section "Axonal Guidance," I would remove the word "interestingly" in the last paragraph just to stay neutral in tone. 
If it's possible to break up "Axonal Guidance" into subsections, I would, just because it is very dense (but full of great info!)
Also, in the final section "Continued research," the sentence "there are still many questions still unanswered" should be altered to avoid redundancy. 
Overall, I think this is an incredibly complete page and the pictures are fantastic.
Great work!
Ldellostritto (talk)
===Response===
We made all the changes you suggested thanks for your help! Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 3

message: We made all the changes you suggested thanks for your help! Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: This is a great article. It is obviously very well researched, and thus very informative. The pictures do a wonderful job of illustrating key facts as well. However, I do have a few grammatical suggestions that may improve your article even more. In the "Key Netrins" section, "periphery nervous system" should be changed to "peripheral nervous system." Also, in that section a sentence reads "...found only vertebrates." I believe you meant to say found only IN vertebrates. In the "Axonal Guidance" section, you say "trophic and trophic factors" as opposed to "trophic and atrophic factors." Also in the same section, it would help readers it was broken down into more specific subdivisions. At the moment, the length of the section makes it appear very intimidating. Also, I noticed that there are no in-line citations in the "Overview of Netrins" section, which you might want to look into. Finally, the paragraphs in the second half of the "Axonal Guidance" section could use some more citation. Overall, the article is very well done, and I hope you find my comments helpful. Good luck!
--Hortonan (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 4

message: Thanks we made the grammatical changes and added the citation. Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: So first of all, I learned a lot from this so thanks! Here are my suggestions. In the introduction, for the second paragraph, just make sure that everything is cited. I was also wondering if you can hyperlink DCC or UNC-5 because I don’t know what they do. If not, can you explain the significance behind these? Another suggestion is I wonder if you can combine sections since overview of netrins and netrin receptors are both such short sections unto themselves. Maybe make a structure and neural function section and put netrin receptors and axonal guidance/glial and mesodermal guidance into this bigger section. Keep the functions outside of neuronal guidance separate since it’s an entirely different section. I think it just organizes it better and makes it clearer. Also, not to be nitpicky, but there’s a way in Wikipedia where you can also superscript the 2+ in calcium in the axonal guidance section. In general, though I thought the article was well written and the pictures are great. And lastly, you guys clearly know your stuff but I do feel as if there might be too much science terminology and a little too dense. If you guys could condense the article to the important science points, it might be easier to read but overall, good job!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDanKim (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 5 

message: Overall the article was really well done. I just have a few points that I believe can be improved:
1. The wording here is a little strange: "It seems that once a pathway has been traced by an axon, new axons tend to follow it rather than being guided by netrins or related chemotropic factors."
2. Maybe make guidance a separate main category and make all the different "guidance" sections, sub-sections off the main guidance section so there can be an overview on what exactly the term guidance means.
3. In the last section, some of the diseases are referenced in the references, but they are not hyperlinked to their corresponding Wikipedia pages even though they weren't hyperlinked in the article yet. An example is myocardial infarction.
5. Some of the paragraphs are lengthy and could be broken up for better flow.
6. I noticed that there aren't TOO many quotes as outlined by the grading rubric for this project, but I think at least one direct quote from one of your many sources could add to your article.
7. The netrin response section could use some more information or explanation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liepa (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 6 

message: Great article! I liked your use of images, I think they really added to your article. I would recommend keeping the introduction short, perhaps making the 3 paragraph of the introduction a separate topic (model for netrin activity) to help with the flow of your article. Also you might want to reword your subtopic "overview of netrins". The overview should be stated in the introduction. This paragraph seems to describe the netrin structure, so you could rename it Netrin structure and even combine it with your later paragraph on netrin receptors. Your subtopics on axonal guidance and development and regulation of tissue contain a lot of great information, but I think readers would get the most out of it if it was further divided into more subcategories. Nice work! Kpangakis (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 7 

message: Overall the article was very well written and very interesting.  The images and pictures were great.  Just a few things I would change up a little:
1) At some points the wording becomes a little cluttered and confusing, maybe just read over a few of the more dense parts and try to either condense them or simplify the language.
2) one of the sections is pretty lengthy i would just suggest breaking it down into a few sub sections for better flow.
3)Just go through and check to make sure that everything that you can hyperlink to another wikipedia page is linked
The page is great and I hope these points help make it even better!
--Schechter  —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 8 

message: Both Pros and Cons 
*The images added helps understand the term a bit more, so it's great that the images were found and added. 
*The part on continued research is a good info to add
*It seems like it might be better if the overview part comes before the discovery part. Even the term discovery might not be the perfect word in some way. History of Netrin or just history might sound better. Discovery just doesn't sound right. 
* Key Netrin and Netrin receptors might be better under the overview heading perhaps? and then the guidance parts can be under one big subheading? Whatever it is, it seems like rearranging the headings and subheadings can also be one part that can be revised. 
Overall, it looks good and it's good that the references seem like they are cited quite well. --Smiley4rang (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 9 

message: Overall, you did a very good job on your articles.  You were very specific and relevant to your topic.  I like the images you chose to post in your article as it demonstrated the sophistication with which netrin signals work.  I would recommend adding more links under the "Functions outside Neuronal Guidance" heading because it would promote people to learn about the different genes and proteins that netrin help regulate. Another suggestion I would make is to work on organization of your information.  There are places where you might been to detailed and could possibly separate those detailed explanations into different subheadings Matthomas118 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 10 

message: We have taken all the peer reviews into account. Small problems in hyperlinks, grammar, headings, and formatting have been edited. There are some larger suggestions that we felt did not go along with the article. They are as follows:
We did not put the “Overview” section before our “Discovery of netrin” section because it did not seem logical to alter the structure of our article. We also did not change “Overview of netrins” to “Netrin Structure” either, instead opting to expand and streamline the section by making “Key Netrins” and “Netrin Receptors” subsections of the overview. We moved the image of signalling next to “Axonal Guidance.” Given the nature of the assignment and guidelines, we did not feel it was necessary to include direct quotations since there were no directs quotes which added to the strength of the article.  Ayman S. Bodair (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Peer Reviews