Talk:Cytosol/GA1
GA Review
[edit]- Prose
- The water discussion in the lead isn't very clear. Also, consider shortening the lead.
- Shortened and reworded.
- First paragraph of Function should be split into more sentences.
- Done.
- Content
- I'd change the proteins section name to macromolecules and add a passing mention of RNA and, more importantly, prokaryotic DNA.
- Done.
- A mention of osmoprotectants in the ion section would be nice
- Added.
- Water activity in the table would be a good addition, though not needed.
- I can't find anybody "bold" enough to be willing to put an exact figure to it! :)
- "Amino acids in proteins" can't really be measured in millimolars
- I agree, I was a bit dubious about this myself, but that's what the source says and I haven't found a better summary anywhere else Table 15-1
- References
- "others may involve more loosely-associated complexes that are very difficult to study outside the cell" the sources are old, are they still poorly studied?
- Very! This is a much-neglected area in my opinion.
- Reliable sources
- All fine. No misquotations spotted.
- Neutrality
- Not really any problem. The article should hint that one shouldn't use the terms protoplasm, nucleoplasm and aqueous cytoplasm (they are not commonplace after all), but I think it does.
- Yes, there are no sources that spell this out explicitly and some even use "cytoplasm" and "cytosol" as if they were synonyms. "Nucleoplasm" is occasionally used, so I thought it was worth adding.
- Stability
- It is stable
- Images
- Lead picture has no reference or info on how it was produced.
- I drew it myself, I'll add where I got the idea and relative scales. I don't think it is quite crowded enough to be honest, but adding more will make the individual components a lot less distinct so I went for the lesser of the two evils. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the compartments until you pointed it out, so more crowded wouldn't be too bad. Narayanese (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I drew it myself, I'll add where I got the idea and relative scales. I don't think it is quite crowded enough to be honest, but adding more will make the individual components a lot less distinct so I went for the lesser of the two evils. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm putting it on hold, I trust your ability to fix the little left for GA. Narayanese (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's a fine article, and while there is room for additional detail in the Properties and composition section, I' say it covers the major aspects along with a selection of minor ones. Time to GA-pass it. Narayanese (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)