Talk:Sucrose gap

message: Hi Wiki community,
We are a group of three Boston College undergraduate students working on a project for our Introduction to Neuroscience course. We will making a lot of modifications during the next few months on the Sucrose Gap page to provide people with more information on this technique. If you want to find out more about our project, please read this page, User:NeuroJoe/BI481_Fall_2012. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarahkim14 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * There's no need for a separate "Introduction". I suggest you combine those couple of sentences with lead paragraph, removing any redunancies
* Refs 6 and 9 appear to be the same - but the vol numbers are different. These shoule be combined into a single citation.
* Add wikilinks to Alan Hodgkin and Andrew Huxley.
* Consider using the  template for references to provide consistent formatting. Template syntax can be tricky, ask if you need help.
* You can remove the stub and orphan templates
Illia Connell (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All suggestions made Illia Connell (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Very good introduction and history, add hyper links to voltage clamp technique, membrane potential, nerve fiber. 
Proper addition of hyperlinks have been added. Thanks for the input. Emmerlin (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: This was a very nice and concise article, which is somewhat surprising considering that Mike Emmerling was in this group (kidding! I’m kidding Mike..).
At one point in the “Method” section, it says,“The third chamber usually contains an KCl solution.” Just a little grammatical error. Quick! Change it before Professor Burdo sees it! 
I loved your “Method” section. It was very clear and concise, and made someone like me who previously had no idea what a sucrose gap was or its relation to neuroscience understand the mechanism through which one would use it.
There is a little bit of overlap between the “History” section and the “Method” section. I understand that it is a very difficult task to possess no overlap between these two segments, but as a suggestion you might want to do a little less describing of the basis of the sucrose gap technique and the double sucrose gap in the “History” section.
I thought that having a section devoted to the “Limitations” of the sucrose gap technique was very wise. It put things into perspective a little, and was a good addition after previously going over the strengths of this technique.
I would have enjoyed a little something more about how the sucrose gap technique is involved in exploring cardiac muscle. It was something that you mentioned in the “History” segment, and I found myself looking forward to some further analysis on this subject throughout the article. I was a little disappointed when I saw it was only briefly mentioned in the “Applications” segment of your article, as I believe this could be something interesting and worth exploring (also considering that two of your citations have to do with sucrose gaps and their connection to cardiac muscle).
Additionally, I feel that the “Applications” section of your article can be strengthened a little bit. You do offer some specific examples of the applications of the sucrose gap junction and double sucrose gap, but I generally think it is a little too general and not enough information. You might want to consider talking about how it relates to pharmaceuticals or if it has some connection to various neurological diseases (has been used to detect the processes by which they work maybe). 
Also, I think an image on your page could be a good idea. Even something that you guys simply draw (assuming it’s a pretty good drawing) that shows the different chambers in the sucrose gap technique. It would possibly help the audience visual the mechanism through which it works a little better.
Overall, I think this is a pretty strong article. Good work you guys.
Fordbd1 (talk) 23:47 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The following comments are presented in the same order as your paragraphs.  Read them accordingly.
1.) Your sarcasm, though hilarious at times, is unwarranted and childish. I am disappointed that you would say such things on my page, one that I worked so painstakingly hard on, thereby detracting from its serious academic tone. Shame on you, Mr. Ford. Shame on you.  However, overlooking your jejune banter, we appreciate your interest in, and approval of, our article.
2.) The edit has been made.  Thank you for the heads-up.
3.) Our Method experts, Clara and Ellen, appreciate your feedback.  They put an ample amount of time into this section in hopes of receiving a response such as yours.
4.) At the moment, we are in the process of editing the contents of the aforementioned sections to accommodate your suggestion, which we found, after further inspection of our article, to be valid.  Hopefully the overlapping did not belittle your experience on our page.
5.) Our Limitations expert, Clara, dearly appreciates your comment.
6.) With a heavy heart do I admit our initial lack of information on cardiac muscle exploration with the sucrose-gap method.  However, should you peruse our article now, or ever in the future for that matter, you will find that I have expanded upon the subject, describing precisely why a double-sucrose gap method is ideal for exploring cardiac muscle currents.  A lack of secondary sources, though, has made an unbiased expansion upon the subject quite daunting.  For this reason, the expansion may not be quite up to your expectations, but it has covered the main points of why one might utilize such an apparatus as the double sucrose-gap and what exactly it has uncovered regarding cardiac muscle.
7.) Given that the Sucrose-gap method is in fact a method, not a biological molecule or anything of the like, I find it hard to relate it to various diseases.  As I write this, however, I see that you have edited your statement to say "has been used to detect...", and thus I rescind my previous statement.  In reference to your comment, I would further repeat what I touched upon in #6: a lack of unbiased secondary sources made expansion upon specific findings, such as those linked to neurological diseases, a laborious effort that proved less than fruitful.  I, too, would have liked to include such information in this article, and it pains me to see such an opportunity and not have the means to capitalize upon it.
8.) We are currently in the process of contacting the publishers of several articles for permission regarding the use of their photographs/images on our page.  We hope to have something turn up within the fortnight.
Thank you for your input on our article. We do appreciate the time and effort you have put into bettering our page.  Good day, sir.
Best,
Emmerlin (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Great job! I have a few suggestions. First, I think incorporating a brief explanation of how the high concentration of sucrose increases resistance would be beneficial in your introduction. You can aso consider creating a separate section for the double sucrose gap because it's mentioned across a couple different sections as it stands now. There are very few hyperlinks in the "Applications" section; for example I think you could link concepts like patch-clamp method. Overall, good work! - Reedich (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Review