Talk:Myelinogenesis

Note to Reviewers

While myelinogenesis is a pretty large topic, it was somewhat difficult to find a great deal of secondary literature that fit, so our goal was to cover a wide range of relevant aspects of the topic.

ShieldsMU wrote the Lead in paragraph, as well as the "Myelinogenesis in the Optic Nerve," and the "Mechanism and Process" sections.

Lusanity1 wrote the "Clinical Significance" and "Stages of Myelinogenesis" sections.

Josecarlos44 wrote the "Importance of Sulfate in Myelinogenesis" and the "Studies on Control of Myelinogenesis" sections.

The "Function," and "Related Research" sections as well as the article's picture were kept from a previous author.

ShieldsMU (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary of Improvements

Due to the fact that this article was already in progress and contains a fair amount of information, our group will attempt to expand and improve upon what the previous author(s) already have in place. For example, our group will alter the subheadings and table of contents: "Function" will become "Clinical Significance," "Process will become "Mechanism and Process." Moreover, a section on the discovery and recent research done on the subject will be created in order to allow readers to better understand how this phenomena was discovered. However, the major contributions from our group will come in adding specific information on the related research that is being performed presently. This will include, but is not limited to a related research section detailing: myelinogenesis in the optic nerve, the importance of sulfate in myelinogenesis, studies on the control of myelinogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShieldsMU (talk • contribs) in 2015

Primary Reviews

Review 1

Guys, this article is kind of a mess. It doesn't seem like you edited it very much, and while I'm not sure of what you added vs. what was already there, I'm pretty sure you're responsible for all of it regardless. You are lacking continuity in your writing style, particularly between the 'Clinical Significance"/"Stages" sections and the latter ones. Additionally, grammatical editing needs to be done- I'll point out the ones I noticed in the following, but it would be worth printing this article and going through it thoroughly. Your article is not verifiable in the sense that it contains a fair bit of original research and references to specific experiments and their corresponding published paper. Wikipedia uses review articles only- when you're looking for new references, make sure you filter by review articles- ones that overview a number of original research articles and compile their findings. Your article is certainly broad in coverage, but almost too broad- there are a number of sections/discussions that are verging on irrelevant to the overall topic. If you find yourself asking what a section has to do with myelinogenesis (as I did a couple times) take it out. You guys are fine in terms of neutrality- nothing biased is written! In terms of illustration, I found the one imagine minimally helpful. I would look for one that illustrates myelin around an axon, or featuring some aspect of MS.

For sake of clarity and specificity, I'm just going to list my notes by section on here for you.

Introduction

Looks good! The picture's not helping an comprehension, though.

Function

-Your first sentence here isn't very clear- in order for laypeople to understand I think you're going to have to get into neuronal signaling, and how it occurs. Here a diagram would be very helpful, of myelinated vs unmyelinated axons.

-Quotes aren't very common in wikipedia articles. I would attempt to paraphrase any quotes that you have.

-"Therefore, the rate of development of these brain structures will determine the rate of development of related brain functions"- there isn't really anything there to support this statement. You need a reference or explanation.

- I think that the discussion of development could be better expressed in its own section, in combination with the studies discussed later concerning development in rats.

Clinical Significance

- A lot of this section needs editing/re-wording for comprehensibility.

-"There has been tests to find a cure that causes demyelination but there have been none"-- this doesn't make sense grammatically; demyelination isn't a disease, it's a symptom

-“However, there are possible strategies that may potentially “remyelinate”myelin sheaths in MS.” -- you regenerate myelin sheaths, or remyelinate axons

-"Myelination is result of a certain type of cell that functions to do this and this is the Oligodendrocytes"-- Please re-word

-oligodendrocytes does not need to be capitalized

-paraphrase!

-the order of this section doesn't really make sense. You're discussing the disease before discussing how myelin even works. You need more on this, including the structure of myeline, because that seems rather vague currently.

-"In recent research, there are possible ways in treating MS but it will not be cured.”-- You shouldn't be drawing conclusions you don't have referential support for.

-“The ways that the researchers approached were:"-- badly worded

-There are a lot of intra-wikipedia links that do not lead to existing pages. Please check your links.

Stages

-The quote in the first paragraph does not add anything to your section/article

-Semi-colons at the ends of your bullet points aren't necessary, and you don't need to capitalized after a semi-colon or colon

Mechanisms and Process

-References six and seven are not review articles- you aren't supposed to discuss original research in wikipedia articles.

- this section seems to be more about signalling mechanisms than processes for myelination- maybe alter the section heading to reflect that

Related Research

-I'm not sure this section is really relevant to your article. If you think it is, potentially rename it "research history" or something that better reflects its content.

Myelinogenesis of the Optic Nerve

-good section

Importance of Sulfate

-I think this would be better as a subheading. under the optic nerve section

- Clarify what [35S] is

- The time scale of the rat study has been changed here (from weeks earlier to days here) making it hard to follow. Continuity would be helpful between the two sections.

Studies on Myelinogenesis

-I'm confused as to why this is not at the beginning, as it seems to be your "processes" section.

-“A key part of the experiment was to indicate that Schwann cells don't synthesize myelin-proteins in the absence of axons in vivo”-- this is the first time you discuss this study, but you give no reference or background. Additionally you should avoid referencing specific studies.

-"Synthesis of detectable myelin-specific proteins do not occur"- grammar

-Even though the axon completely controlled the synthesis of these proteins, the axon alone isn’t enough for myelination.”-- this is extremely unclear

-"As the experiment progressed, it became more evident that membrane-membrane interactions between axons somehow promoted the synthesis of the P1, P2, and P0 proteins."-- same problem as before, what experiment?

-This isn't the place to suggest further research

Citations

Your citations are a bit of a mess. The first one is just a link to an abstract- you need to cite the whole article. The second one, the article needs to be cited (hint: the citation is on the website you linked to). After that, it's rather inconsistent. Some have/don't have DOIs, some don't have journal volume/issue numbers.

Also, why is the Physiology of the Nervous System" table after the citations? If you think it's valuable to your article, put it IN your article.

Overall I can see that you have added a lot, it just seems to have been done rather haphazardly. Sit down and do some focused editing and this could be a really good article!

AndersonKM (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 2

While this article is chalk full of information, all of the information seems to be spread out in a really sporadic manner. The basic grammar and sentence structure of the article is good and does not need to be focused on. However, it is very recognizable that this article was written by multiple different authors. Certain sections do not flow together. An easy way to fix this specific problem would be to rearrange your sections. An example of doing this would be to move the "Clinical Significance" section after all of the explanatory sections of the article. It feels very choppy to read the introduction and function of the article, and then to read about a disease that affects the process, and then to jump back again to learning more about the process. Simply rearranging the different sections will help improve on the flow of the article as a whole.

Your first reference does not link to a secondary review, but instead it links to an abstract of a review. The first reference is also not in the proper format for a review from a journal. Because the majority of your references are correctly cited, this should be a simple fix. This same problem follows for the second cited reference as well. It is not properly cited. Again, all of the other references that are cited in this article are properly cited, so fixing the articles citation as well should not be a problem. It is difficult to decipher whether or not the first and second references are secondary reviews. Make sure that these article fall under that category. The rest of your references need a little help as well. There is no way to pursue them any further, meaning that none of them are verifiable at the moment. They appear to be properly cited, but because there is no link to any of them, it is hard to say that they are verifiable and secondary reviews. I would suggest using the Wikipedia citation tool. This will make sure that the references that you choose to use are properly cited. However, all of the literature used must be secondary reviews, not abstracts such as the first reference. Your use of references is strong though. You are citing material in the article that needs to be cited correctly. My only correction for the material found in the article is to NOT quote anything. Use paraphrasing and then cite the material. Nothing should be quoted because you have the ability to use all of references as citations. Remove the quoted material, reword the sentences so that they are paraphrased, and cite the information.

The first half of this article is very broad, in a good way. This includes the introductory paragraph, the function section, the clinical significance section (though this section should be moved towards the end of the article), and the stages section. These sections are broad enough that all of the information that should be found in these sections is found. Nothing is specifically focused on. I would suggest adding more detail to the information that is already there though, specifically to the stages section. While the information already provided in the section is informative on the subject, it would be beneficial to expand on the different stages of the process. It would help create a more focused picture of what the article is trying to describe. The second half of this article continues to be broad in the manner of keeping very specific details to a minimum, but the specific sections that are lied out seem way to specific. All the information regarding research should be kept in one section of 'Research'. The mechanism of sulfate should be included with the mechanisms/functions content. This article should stay broad throughout the entire read, so the sections should be extremely broad. Also, is it necessary to talk about the process for the optic nerve? It does not appear to be different from the rest of the axons in the body. If it is different, re-write the section so that it is clear that it is different. If it is the same exact process, dilute the information. It seems a little unnecessary to devote an entire section to a specific area when the article should be covering the entire process as a whole throughout the entire body.

An aspect that this article should be applauded on is the neutrality of the entire article. Every section stays neutral, making the entire article neutral as well too. Even though it is clear that the article was written by multiple authors, the neutrality can be found from beginning to end. Because the neutrality of the article is executed flawlessly, I would suggest using that as a starting point to help make the article flow as a whole and less choppy. Rearrangement will be easy because no matter where certain sections are placed, the neutrality will remain. Good job keeping it neutral.

If it is at all possible to find a photo of an axon that is myelinated, or the process of myelination, or even just a photo of a neuron with an axon, that would be amazing. The photo that is currently on your article's page, makes a little sense, because the process occurs within the brain, but other than that, it is a bit out of place. Try to find more specific photos that will benefit your page and help describe the information that you are talking about. Other photos that you could place on your article's page could be of the different neurons that you describe in your article! Also, you need to move your table of 'Physiology of the Nervous System.' That should absolutely not be underneath the cited references. Move it up towards the beginning of the article.

• • As said above earlier, your second reference should not just be a hyperlink. How did you find this article? Use the Wikipedia citation tools to properly cite this article because it holds information that is extremely useful and beneficial to this article! You have used a lot of the information provided, but there were a couple things in the article that were not found in this article that I think you should try to find some room for. This article describes the speed of information and how it is dependent on myelination of axons. It also further explains that different thickness of myelin and different diameters of the axons of the axons that the myelin is found on. This information is crucial to put into your article because it is the basis of myelin's function!! Put this information in your function section, it will help provide information on WHY axons are myelinated and why different synapes have different speeds.

Overall, this article appears to be under construction, most of the information you need to make a clean and smooth article is there though. It just needs a little rearrangement of sections, some fixing of the specific section headings and the information provided within each section, and adding some more information and pictures to pull everything together! MadelineJuliette (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review by Madelaine Martin

Well-written: Your article complies with the manual of style guidelines as far as I can discern. (save for the references section, see below comments!!). The article is well-written for the most part; the prose is mainly clear, however there are a few rough patches in terms of sentence structure and general “smoothness” of reading. Nothing too glaring, however, for example, this sentence “While the rate at which individual children develop varies, the sequence of development is the same for all children” could be re-written to be significantly more clear to the reader. (Ex...the rate of how children develop... what rate are you referencing, height, weight, myelination rate? Also, what sequence of development?... plus the word children is used twice. Avoid repetition) Just editing simple stuff like that would bring the article to a higher level to an outside reader who may not know as much about the subject as the authors. Other small errors, such as semicolons under the Stages section after each stage, need to be erased. I would advise everyone coming together and editing as a group to fix small errors like that which make a big difference in the end. That being said I thought you guys did a very nice job for the complexity of the subject!

Verifiable Not sure what reference number one is? It is just a link. Also the second reference listed seems to be incomplete as well. The second link does qualify as a secondary source, however more info must be added such as author, publishing date, and so on. (This can be a quick fix- just look at the reference citation and make changes for the final posting of the article). I was also wondering about the a b c d e letterings vs the ^ symbol that is included in the reference section- is this normal? You all must fix this stuff for the final draft. All the other references listed (3-12) appear to be in fine shape and follow formatting, so maybe just fix the first two. I can see no original research- all is good there.

Broad in coverage I did have an issue with this part of the review; it seems that you guys have asked a fair amount of questions in the article instead of answering them. I don't think that lends at all to the reader's confidence. For example “Many key questions about the myelination process still remain: Why axons of similar size seem to myelinate at the same time; Whether proteins, molecules, and genes are involved in determining axon size; If axonal activity influences the process, if there is a causal relationship, or if there is a more complex combined effect; Why certain processes seem to be lost if myelination does not occur.” First and foremost, check you use of semicolons here. Second, I would avoid asking the reader any of these questions. I would even go so far as to erase this entire quote, because you already say “although the mechanism and processes of myelination are yet to be fully understood...” You have already expressed that not all there is to know has been discovered. More over, there seems to be a lot of direct quotes. Perhaps I am mistaken, however I thought that in our reviews we shouldn’t use any? I would DEFINITELY consider trying to rework some of the many quotes into more of your own words. It lends a better flow to the article as well. I also believe you guys have a lot of information ( you have two research/ study sections )- maybe it would be better to focus on one of those in more depth or to concisely consolidate them? There is a of information on the page and it may be better to think about cutting some stuff down and honing in on a more precise description. I thought that the Myelinogenesis in the optic nerve Section was really good- complex info being described in a concise, readable way. Great job! Neutral Article was neutral! Stable Yup! Illustrated I really liked the illustration you guys picked! You could even add another if you want. I thought you guys did a pretty good job getting the first draft together, however there were some larger errors that took away from credibility. I would really focus on editing the grammar and sentence structure, and focus on quality of information vs quantity. Nonetheless, I think with some general editing the end article is going to be really great! :) Keep it up! Mady mads (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer 1

Thank you for your comments about the article. You had some very specific things you recommend we change and after further reviewing the article we have agreed with a lot that you said. The order of the article has been changed and we feel that this makes the article flow a lot better. We added more images that hopefully clarify the process of myelinogenesis. A lot of the information has been simplified for the less experienced readers, quotes have been removed and paraphrased, and certain things that confused you have hopefully been clarified in a manner that still made sense to use based on our research of the topic. We also made changes to how the references were displayed on the article. Again thanks for the criticism and opinion on the article.

Reviewer 2

We would also like to thank you for noticing the pro and cons of our article. You suggested similar changes as reviewer 1, so obviously we thought they were changes that needed to be done. We have gone through the article and have hopefully caught most of the wording and grammar mistakes we made. We have also clarified certain ideas we were trying to explain, and hopefully now it is easier for the reader to understand our thought process. Again since there were a lot of similar comments made in Reviewer 1, we made the suggested changes and appreciate your input on our topic.

Reviewer 3

Thank you for reviewing our article and for your comments. Hopefully the points that confused you in our article are now clear. When we were going over it, we noticed that what we were trying to say made sense to use since we did extensive research on the topic however it was hard to follow unless the reader did the same amount of research that we did. So we simplified things to make everything easier for an average reader. Again a lot of your comments were similar to that of Reviewers 1 and 2, so I would just like to indicate that those modifications have been made. We adjusted the article and feel that it flows a lot better now and makes more sense as you continue reading it.

Secondary Reviews

Review 1

This is a nice expansion to the article. You seem to have added a lot of relevant information that gives the reader a better understanding of what myelinogenesis is. However, I do have a few suggestions in order to help further improve your article. First, in your “Reference Section”, references 1 and 2 do not seem to be proper citations. They are both just links to outside websites. I would look at your other citations and then write these two in the same format so that there is consistency. Then, for your other sources, I would see if you can find a doi and PMID for each of them. Wikipedia, I believe, ideally wants a PMID for each citation but at the very least a doi, which some of your citations do not have. I would also see if you can find some more additional recent research. I know you are adding to an article that had a lot of information, but still, a great deal of you sources are very old, and while this is okay for some sections like a history section, it would be ideal to have sources within the last 5 years or so, that show similar information and research to the articles from the 1900's. Moreover, several of your Wiki links, (the ones in red) do not connect to Wikipedia pages as there is no Wikipedia page for these terms. So, I would remove these links.

Additionally, you seem to have a lot of quotes throughout the article. Is there any way you can put these sentences into your own words? Some quotes may be ok if there is no other way to say it or for added emphasis, but they seem a bit overused or unnecessary especially in the “Clinical Significance” section. Also, in the “Related Research” section you have a large indented block of writing. Is that a large quote? If so, again I would suggest trying to put this into your own words. I believe Wikipedia says that you may use relevant quotes if necessary, but they should be an appropriate length, and this seems to be a lot of text for a single quote for Wikipedia. You could maybe put some in your own words and have a few smaller quotes. Moreover, we are supposed to focus on secondary literature. The information in this “Related Research” section seems to be very primary in nature as it seems to be from an article the writer wrote on his own research and experiment, not a review. So, I would see if there may be some secondary literature that supports this information so that it is not so primary.

Lastly, I would just suggest reading it through out loud. Some of the sections are a little confusing grammatically, and there seem to be a few word omissions. I would look specifically at the “Clinical Significance” section. For example, “There has been tests to find a cure that causes demyelination but there have been none” is a very confusing and improper sentence. This occurs several times throughout the article, so I would read everything out loud. It really helps to read something out loud because often times you are able to hear the mistakes, but you do not always see them. Also, I would refrain from using first person terms. For example “When graphing the amount of sulfatide made from [35S] and the activity of sulfotransferase, we get to distinguished peaks”. I would eliminate the “we” and the “to” should be “two”.

Otherwise, I would keep up the good work. You seem to have a good foundation for the article and have added a lot of relevant information. I would just work on the grammar and style, and see if any more recent review research could be applied to expand and contribute to your article. 7753spoom (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 2

This is a great article that was generally well written. A couple suggestions I have would include the following:

In the function section, you should clarify how myelination allows signals to be sent, “swiftly and with less signal loss”. Maybe mention what we learned about in class about how it impacts membrane resistance and capacitance, ultimately increasing conduction velocity. I understand that the group set out to add, “specific information on the related research that is being performed presently”. However, in order to understand how it functions here, one must know how myelination increases conduction velocity.

Make sure to include citations for every quote directly following the quote. I couldn’t tell where some of the quotes came from.

Reread your writing and make sure it sounds correct. I think some of it can be made more succinct and/or clearer.

Some of the links you used were not connected to existing Wikipedia pages. For example, “OL markers” is not an existing wikipage. Change the wording so it leads to a real article.

Add some more pictures. That is one of the criteria for having a good article. Maybe an oligodendrocyte picture would be a good idea.

There is supposed to be no original research in these articles so maybe instead of saying what researchers did or who they were, just say what was concluded. What was written is very close, but I feel it is using original research, even if the source is secondary.

Analysis of source #2: Myelination in Development The authors cited this source and used its information correctly in the Wikipedia. I would, however, question this article as a credible secondary source. The link to the source is science week, which is promising, just the article itself seems questionable. Maybe find the link to it from the science week article and use that url? Jamesbond35 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 3

The function section seems to be very disconnected; it is jumping from one topic to another without much connecting the sentences. I would go through and do a few minor edits to allow it to flow better. Also, I would remove the quote, paraphrase it instead. The last sentence of the section does not need the parenthesis, it adds nothing to the sentence, it just says the same thing as the sentence in another way.

The clinical significance section is similar to the function section, it is disjointed and disconnected. A few things to clean up: myelinogeneis should not be capitalized in the first sentence, and multiple sclerosis should not be capitalized in the first sentence as well. “There has been tests…” should be “There have been tests…” in order to make it maintain the past tense used later in the sentence. Oligodendrocytes should not be capitalized in the middle of the sentence for the second paragraph. Once again there are quotes, I would remove those and paraphrase. The immunotherapies wikilink is not working. Overall, this section is disjointed and there are many words in the sentences that are not necessary, once fixed this section will flow much better. For example, the first sentence in the second paragraph could read “Myelination is a result of oligodendrocytes, a certain cell type that functions in the myelination axons.”

The stages section needs a little more about what the stages mean. It seems that is where the author was going with it with the semicolon, but then never finished. So, if there is axon contact, contact with what? Where?... A few questions need to be answered there to make it clearer.

The myelinogeneis in the optic nerve section is well written. It has an obvious stylistic difference from the first section. Maybe, go through the first half of the article and bring it to a similar style as this later section.

The importance of sulfate is an interesting section. Overall it is well written, just a minor thing: the “central nervous system” in the third paragraph does not need to be capitalized. Overall, this article has disjointed parts and disjointed style. I am unsure what was previously there, but it may help to go through and editing a sentence here or there. This will bring a common style throughout the article, and it will make it more understandable. Some overall comments; a few other wikilinks are not working throughout the article, they need to be fixed, and maybe a few images here or there would increase understanding. 1415jacobsx (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 4

I can see this article has potential, but there are several things that should be looked over and rethought. From an overall standpoint I feel that this article could really use a step back and a thorough read. There were many sections were there was broad information to the point where I felt it was pointless and added nothing to the article. Also I feel that many sentences did not really flow well and the article could become much more succinct. Your writing style should be revisited as well as editing some grammatical mistakes I found throughout the article. You used many quotations in your article and that is really not what Wikipedia is looking for. I would rethink your strategy, go out and find different articles, and focus on more of an impact view than a how it came to be view. Try and get more into the effects it has had on society rather than how it came into society. The only other thing I want to mention is maybe try to add some more pictures. Otherwise I feel this article has the potential to be quite good. Scienceguy21 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 5

This article is very interesting and well-written. I thought it was very organized and had simple, concise sentences. However, my suggestion would be to add more links and avoid quotes. In addition, when looking back at your article, everything in red means that there is not a link to a Wikipedia page. I would try to see if there are pages that exist but with a different ending, such as immunotherapy instead of immunotherapies. PrestonBIO (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 6

This is a good start for the article, but there are a few things that can be improved. The lead paragraph is a bit weird in the way it flows. I think you should combine both definitions or use the specific one. In the first sentence in the function section. When you say "more swiftly" what are you comparing it to. The function portion has good info, but the structure/flow is a bit disconnected. The first sentence in the clinical significance can be worded better. Under clinical significance, in the 1st sentence of the second paragraph, what is "this" being referred to? Overall, you guys have good concepts and information but the writing quality can be improved by making things flow a little better. 9635wilmota (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 7

This article contains a lot of information. It would be helpful to the reader if the information were summarized. For example, the writers often refer to specific experimentally obtained data. This would be more digestible if the data was summarized in a way that is understandable to a general audience. So instead of discussing what the researchers did, discussion of what data means in context would be great. The bullet points used in the "stages" section work really well. Using something similar to organize the "mechanism" section would improve the article. This would help a reader put the pieces together and make the described parts of the mechanism flow better. The lead paragraph could also use a better organization scheme. Try to briefly summarize each major article point in your lead paragraph so the reader understands how each subheading contributes to the big picture.

A general description of myelin near the beginning of the article would help. Additionally, further explanation of "neural signaling" and how myelin helps prevent decay of an electrical signal would help a reader understand the importance of myelination. Also, it would be a huge help if the writers included PMIDs (or equivalent links) with the citations used. This would allow quick reference to any cited material.

To summarize this review, the writers should focus on summarizing exiting data and forming a more cohesive picture of how Myelinogenesis occurs and why it is important. Basically, focus on forming the big picture rather than listing individual pieces of data. Btw777 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 8

The introduction and function sections were clear, concise, and well written overall. However, the last sentence of the function section says the sequence of development is the same for all children. The logical progression of the page would then include the subheading “Stages”. Furthermore, clinical significance may work better as one of the last sections, not the second.

You don’t need to double cite Multiple Sclerosis in the Clinical Implications. Also, the second sentence in clinical significance may be reworded to say “The oligodendrocyte is a cell that functions to remyelinate other cells in the central nervous system”, in order to make it easier to understand. You may also want to mention that Oligodendrocytes work only in the CNS, as Schwann cells myelinate the peripheral nervous system. You could expand more on the ways in which MS can be treated. You list three possibilities, but don’t explain them. Even just a sentence each would be helpful. You have noun-pronoun issues in the clinical significance section such as “drugs that would relieve symtoms… but it will not cure”. The pronoun should be they.

In the stages section, you use a link to OL markers, a page which does not exist. I found the list of stages informative and helpful for understanding what occurs. I learned a lot from both this section and the section on the mechanism. The research might need to be paraphrased more in these sections, in order to give a more concise view of the results in general terms.

Overall, I really enjoyed the article and learned a lot about myelinogenesis. LaurenNicole7911 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Review 9

First thing that caught my eye when I opened the article was the picture! Nice image, but I think the group could try to find one that is a little more specific to the topic, such as a visual of a myelinated axon vs. an unmyelinated axon, or an image explaining the difference of myelination in an MS patient. One thing I was hoping to see when I read the sentence before the block paragraph in “Related Research” was that the #F43, #F44, and #F45 would correspond to the image at the top so readers could have a visual representation of the structures but this wasn’t so (I also wasn’t sure if they were supposed to refer to those specific structures). This may be something you want to consider, if you could find an image that you could report back to throughout the article. Or maybe those were just words of the scientist! The introduction is very informative, but the wording of the second sentence may be a little too “scientific” for the average science reader. It kind of threw me off, I had to re-read it to fully wrap my head around it. I see plenty of blue links throughout the article, which is good as there are a lot of specific anatomical structures and terms that readers will have to know in order to understand the significance. Overall, the article was very informative and well structured. I like the significance of the studies that the group examined. Well done! Specialtexas (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)