Talk:Threshold potential

message: My name is Maggie Scollan and I am a junior at Boston College. As part of Dr. Joseph Burdo's Introduction to Neuroscience course, myself and others will be working to improve articles relating to the topic, in conjunction to the goals set out by the Society for Neuroscience. My group members are Marko Tkach and Nicole Kopidakis, and we will be expanding the information concerning Threshold Potential. For the next few days (November 2012), we will be in the process of editing this page, so ask that information is not deleted or edited without our knowledge. We are attempting to create an informative page with accurate information and appreciate outside edits, but want to be aware of edits made so that we can appropriately learn if there are mistakes. To further understand our purpose, click here for our project proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scollanm (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 3, 2012‎
===November 3, 2012===
Today, the following text was added to this page. The text is lacking citations as of right now within the text, but scholarly review articles on which all the text is written have been referenced at the bottom of the page. The goal is to have intext citations completed by next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scollanm (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 3, 2012‎
:I noticed the constructive criticisms regarding our citations and hyperlinks. As of today, I have gone through my section of the article [Discovery and the Characteristics of Threshold] and hyperlinked to other wikipedia sites so that our article is more directly connected within the encyclopedia. I also have added inline citations. - User:NicoleKopidakis  —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me suggest that you make the headings (titles) for each section with only the first word capitalized ("sentence case", not "title case"), as it says at MOS:HEAD. Also, the inline citations come after the period at the end of a sentence, not before, and there is no space before a citation begins. Also, please take a look at the edit I made about the reference citations, and see how to properly link the Notes to the References, also explained at :Template:Sfn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I replaced it with a better source. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction to Neuroscience Course Project

message: Today, the following text was added to this page. The text is lacking citations as of right now within the text, but scholarly review articles on which all the text is written have been referenced at the bottom of the page. The goal is to have intext citations completed by next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scollanm (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 3, 2012‎
:I noticed the constructive criticisms regarding our citations and hyperlinks. As of today, I have gone through my section of the article [Discovery and the Characteristics of Threshold] and hyperlinked to other wikipedia sites so that our article is more directly connected within the encyclopedia. I also have added inline citations. - User:NicoleKopidakis  —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me suggest that you make the headings (titles) for each section with only the first word capitalized ("sentence case", not "title case"), as it says at MOS:HEAD. Also, the inline citations come after the period at the end of a sentence, not before, and there is no space before a citation begins. Also, please take a look at the edit I made about the reference citations, and see how to properly link the Notes to the References, also explained at :Template:Sfn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: November 3, 2012

message: Overall, this article covers a lot of the information necessary in understanding the threshold potential and it seems to be structured very well. However, there are a few changes that I believe would enhance the article even further. First of all, the introduction seems to be a little to specific, as well as brief. I think that instead of listing specific threshold potentials in the introduction, move those facts to a later section, either Discovery or Physiological Function, and in its place, sum up the articles contents more thoroughly. The introduction should serve to outline what is going to be stated in the article, as well as any other general facts about the threshold potential instead of such detailed information. Also, in the third paragraph under the Discovery heading, in the first sentence, it would be helpful to explain exactly which currents are equal and opposite, those being the Na and K currents. Even though it may be implied, it would be more easily understood if those were labeled explicitly. Although the Physiological Function section has a great breakdown of the information and structure, it would serve the reader better if the variations section had more detailed explanations of how exactly the variables discussed affect the threshold potential, rather than just stating that they do. Lastly, I think that images of the plots described in the Threshold electrotonus section ("fans out" and "fans in") would be very helpful in understanding the exact results received in such experiments. If these changes were made to the article, I believe that it would be a very great article with a lot of very useful and interesting information.Schererp (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review for BI481

message: Good job so far. I noticed a few proofreading/wording errors: the omission of units (-70 mV) and the unnecessary use of a comma in the last sentence of the introduction. Also, the beginning of the second paragraph states: “The threshold potential is simply a specific measurement of the difference in charge across a cellular membrane.” However, this describes any membrane potential, not specifically a threshold potential so you should revise this sentence. Next, when you introduce Nernst for the first time in the “Discovery” section, include his first name. You should also correct the disambiguation needed tags in the “Discovery section.” Also, I would like to see an elaboration of the causes of threshold variation in the “Variations” section. In particular, you could give an example of a specific type of neuron with a large axon diameter and its threshold value. You could also briefly list mechanisms for the change in ion conductances that bring about changes in the threshold value, e.g. toxins and the problems that arise from toxins. Overall, nice work!-Reedich (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: After reading the numerous peer reviews and constructive criticisms on the Wikipedia page, I made changes  to the body of the article in order to improve it. I added full names to the scientists who performed the experiments, so that they were less ambiguous. Additionally, I fixed any grammatical errors that were present and parts of the article that were deemed unclear. Most importantly, I added more examples of the variations in threshold potential. This was important to discuss that topic in more depth, which was a recurring comment mentioned in the peer reviews. Overall, the discovery and physiological function sections were improved so that they provided more examples and better explanations. NicoleKopidakis (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Reviews

message: I expanded the "clinical significance" section, incorporating conditions of both the nervous and cardiovascular systems. Citations are included as necessary.
Marko Tkach (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Marko's Response

message: Speaking as the person who added the "citation needed" in June 16, I think we can do better than Khan  academy. While it's an excellent resource for learning, it's not a proper source. Surely we can find a first-hand reference (and yes, I have been looking). I wouldn't be surprised if Khan academy got their info from this article in the first place...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.107.112.139 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I replaced it with a better source. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threshold potential value range (Intro, 2nd paragraph)

message: I find this to be a nicely written article, thank you!  But I'm thinking that it could be interesting/useful to include whatever it is that causes the value of the threshold potential to be what it is. I'm not talking about things which can assist or impede REACHING that threshold value, but rather what is it that causes the threshold value to BE the value it is in the first place.  
I'm thinking it might/must relate to something like the 'springiness' of the voltage sensor/gate, that is, how much of a voltage is necessary to overcome the resistance of the voltage sensor to MOVE (polar strength of the sensor? or shape connections to rest of pore?) and thus either move itself out of the way for ions to pass through the pore (if it's a gate), or to re-configure the shape of the pore to allow ions through (whichever is the way the voltage sensor relates to ions passing through).  Is the cause of the value of the threshold anything like that, or what? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What actually CAUSES the threshold potential to BE the value it is? 

message: Seifter 2005, p. 55. seems to be broken. Can someone hyperlink this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.189.89 (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference issue