Talk:TRPV2

message: It was really interesting to learn how TRPV2 plays a role in negative homeostatic control of excess cell proliferation through inducing apoptosis, as my part of my article was writing about apoptosis in neuronal cells. I learned more about apoptosis through TRPV2 because I did not realize it could be induced by other proteins. Laurennmichelle7 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary review

message: * I really like your use of images and figures on the right side of the page, although there are two of the same picture (ribbon-structure)
* I would make sure to go through the article and touch up any grammatical or wording issues, making sure that the article flows smoothly from section to section. Also remember to try and simplify the language as much as possible since the goal of the assignment is for the layperson to have a decent understanding of what the article is saying.
* I would maybe move the "Discovery" section to the top section after the main introductory one, right above the "Subfamily" section.
* Make sure to make use of those links, as I noticed that some of the sections have none at all
* The "Clinical Significance" section is by far the best section as it ties everything together, and brings it back to the bigger picture. Great explanations and relevant information is used in this section. 
* Also liked how there is the comparison between the homo sapiens, mus musculus, and rattus norvegicus for tissue distribution. This helps show how well conserved the genes are for this particular channel.
--RyanD15 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: Overall, this page offered interesting information on the topic.  I liked the use of illustrations throughout the page that, at the very least, offer an idea of the areas this topic is involved with.  There could maybe be more links on some words added for easier access on helping the reader get a better grasp on material if needed.  Some of the formatting needs to be touched up such as in the paragraph under Discovery where the citations are missing the links to their sources. (AKMade (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Review

message: Great article! You guys have tons of information and touch on a lot of topics. Just a few suggestions:
There are many sections with only a few or no links to other wikipedia pages. Since you talk about a lot of complex topics, you might want to link these topics to other wikipedia pages
There are some areas where grammar, punctuation, etc. is a little off. It's mostly minor things, but you might want to proofread again. I remember seeing some in the "TRP subfamily" part specifically but there may be more
The headings of sections should only have the first word capitalized. So it should be “Species homology” instead of “Species Homology”
All your info is awesome - just a few formatting things. Hope this helps!
Briancmart2 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary reveiw 

message: Good Job! There are some minor adjustments that could be made, however.
1. In the first two sentences of the Species Homology section- the word unique is repeated very close together and its very redundant.
2. I would either link some other wikipedia pages to your subtopics or go more explain some of the points further. There are some very detailed subtopics that would be very hard for the general population. (ex: cancer, immunity, metabolic sections)
3. I feel as if the last sentence of the "Structure" topic is not needed. You could say what opens the the channel but giving the information earlier about it being a nonspecific cation channel is sufficient in saying it will cause an action potential.
You guys have plenty of info and will make for a great article when polished up. 
PTRK22 (talk)PTRK22  —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary review

message: It was very easy to read this article and follow along because the information was presented well, and was very interesting. The only things I would suggest to make this great article even better would be to possibly move the discovery section to be read before the structure section to help the article flow a little better. Other than that, the images used in this article are very intriguing, and definitely catch the readers attention throughout the sections. Although there are some small grammar issues, the other main thing I would suggest would be to use more hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages within the discovery, species homology, homo sapiens, and central nervous system sections. I say this because some of the sections without them are not as effective as they could be. Also, If it would be possible to add some more information in the metabolic section that would help the article be even better, because when it gets to the end of the article the reader's attention seems to slip a tad bit. Other than those small things to fix, this article was done exceptionally well. In regard to a source to verify, I came across source 13 and because of the results section this source may be looked at as a primary source. I understand the data may have been able to help with the discussion of the mus musculus section, but you may want to see if you can find a secondary source that will help! Nonetheless, this article is off to a great start and is well written!
JCW23528 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review 

message: I must say that of all of our articles I've read so far this one really stands out. One thing I really liked in particular was the use of visuals. Many other articles I've read either don't have enough or don't have any. 
One thing I would recommend is to add more information to your lead section. It does a good job of defining TRPV2 but it would be nice if it could summarize the points of the article. However if you believe that Content section underneath it does that job adequately enough then disregard my advice. For the TRP Subfamily, Discovery, Species Homology, Homo Sapien, Metabolic, Cardiovascular, and CNS sections I thin that you should add some links to other Wiki articles since these sections were completely lacking in them. Also, although this was infrequent try to avoid using acronyms or abbreviations for words if you haven't fully spelled them out beforehand (for example "N and C terminal"). For your section heads the second word does not need to be capitalized (for example "Clinical Significance" should be "Clinical significance"). Aside from that there is also a few punctuation and grammar errors. Nothing major but I would recommend rereading it to try to catch and correct them. Also I noticed in the Discovery section that there was a problem with your citations. They were just typed in the regular font right after the sentence instead of being linked to the sources below. You will definitely want to go back and fix it.   
I picked the 16th citation to verify "TRPV2 channel negatively controls glioma cell proliferation and resistance to Fas-induced apoptosis in ERK-dependent manner." Although this article is cited correctly, it is not a secondary source because it discusses the methods and materials as well as results. 
Overall the article layout is up to Wikipedia standards. It is very well written and only needs some minor corrections and possibly a little additional information. It is verifiable and most of the research is not original (just need to fix the one i mentioned). it is broad in its coverage, neutral, and stable. And the Illustrations are on point and in good quantity. D. Royevich (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Review

message: Hi! Your article was very nicely done! As for wiki's criteria, it was well written and flows. It is organized and the titles and headings look good, and with all the media/photos it looks very professional. I would recommend reading over it again as I noticed a few a few small grammar mistakes. The intro sentence of your lead was strong, and all content within the article I found relevant. The topics you did span were many, and you didn't go into unnecessary detail but just the right amount. I saw no signs of original research and for the most part your references were within the standard. I did notice a few that were primary, and not secondary sources, however. For example, your 9th citation "Lack of TRPV2 impairs thermogenesis in mouse brown adipose tissue" had a results and methods section and as it was a research article I do believe it was primary. As another small suggestion, I would maybe add a few more hyperlinks to make it easier for the readers to fully understand the article. Otherwise, great job! I was very impressed with the article! Isabella3501 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Review  

message: Nice job! Very good use of images, they are useful and illustrative but don't overwhelm your information. I like that you included the tissue distribution of TRPV2 in different model organisms, I think that is very helpful for a broad overview of TRPV2. I've been looking over other comments and I would have to agree that you might include some more links in various sections, as well as clean up your formatting, but other than that I would say it's a job well done!
Maribio97 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 

message: I thought the article page was organized very well. If possible, I would try to add more references/links to other existing wikipedia pages for more complicated words that are necessary for the understanding of the TRPV2 channel. I also thought that showing where in the human genome the protein could be found on, as well as its molecular structure was a nice visual representation of what you are going to be talking about. 
I would also try to make each section flow more nicely. Some are very detailed while others are more broad in its details.
Overall, good job!
--Kellyneurobiology (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review 1 

message: This article did a very good job addressing a large amount of subtopics to provide a comprehensive review. Overall, I think more hyperlinks could be used throughout the article and some scientific jargon could be explained a bit more. There were a few grammatical errors throughout, which will be easy to fix once read through again. Additionally, a few source errors were present. I liked the pictures spaced throughout, however, formatting so they all align in a similar way could be helpful if possible. 
I think that the lead did a good job generally, however, I think a bit more could be added to set up the rest of the subsections that follow. I thought that the tissue distribution and clinical significance sections were done very well, particularly. However, more citations could be used in the clinical significance section. I learned a lot in this section and paid particular attention to the central nervous system subsection. 
Overall, I can tell that a lot of information and work was put into making this a quality article. I think that this was done well but a few minor adjustments can be made to make the information flow better from each section to make it easier to follow. Additionally, some of the terms and explanations used were complex and difficult to understand if one did not have any scientific background. However, the depth of the sections were done well and a lot of information was provided adequately. 8690mellind (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Review