Talk:P-type calcium channel

Note to Reviewers

This topic had a good amount of primary research associated with it; however, there was not a significant number of general review articles available. For this reason we selected a few general topics (including channel blockers and related diseases) to focus on while writing. Syeager.93 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This topic is being edited as an assignment in an undergraduate neurobiology course. The course is participating in the Wikipedia Education Program. The revised article will be posted by March 24, 2014. Syeager.93 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #1

This article was very well written. Good job everyone, you clearly knew what you were writing. You did a great job writing the basic information for P-type Calcium channels. You had a variety of information which was very helpful in understanding what these channels are. Someone who is not familiar with the topic would find it helpful and easy to understand. I really loved how simple it was understand and follow along. Some articles can be very confusing so great job there as well. Here are some of my suggestions to make the article slightly better in my opinion. First you talk about how the channels can be blocked with toxins. I really liked how you included that, it was very interesting. With that maybe you could put in what happens when the channels are blocked. You talk about the spider venom and how the channels are blocked but what happens after? Talk about the symptoms perhaps of someone who might get infected with the venom. The history section is in the end so I would put that first, after the introduction. It seems appropriate there and it is better to introduce the reader to how the channels were discovered before you talk about how the structure and function of it. I also read over your 3rd reference source with Cherksey (1989) and I noticed you did not use much information from that review article into this article. I think you could make this longer and explain about the spider experiment that was conducted and how they noticed that FTX blocks the Ca-dependent spikes. It would be an interesting experiment to put in and would be fun to read about. It would really show the reader how experiments have proved that the channels can be blocked with small amount of toxins. Otherwise the review was used fine. You have a lots of links provided which are helpful but maybe you could limit them. In one sentence in the therapeutics section, every single word has a link. All the links to the symptoms of the channels seem a little excessive. I do not think pain,asthma,and schizophrenia need links, people usually know about those. Again, great introduction, it is very clear what you will talk about in the article. The sections are divided up nicely and make for easy transitions. The disease section is well done and makes sense. Great job with the pictures too, they were appropriate, but maybe you could add one more. Excellent job so far, it was a great article to read and you are well on your way. Muhippolover (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review #1: Thank you for your review. First, we agree that we should include some of the effects of blocking the channels. We believe the related diseases section covers some of the symptoms that people may feel if the channels are inhibited. We will add in a few sentences to make this more clear. Second, we also agree that the history section should be moved towards the beginning. Third, for the article Cherksey (1989) that you reviewed, we believe that we should not include specific data from the experiments, which is why we have chosen not to include the research data. Wikipedia articles do not typically include such specific research. Fourth, concerning the links, we believe that these links may be necessary for the everyday reader on Wikipedia. Our topic is very dense and we believe the links can really aid the readers in understanding. Lastly, we agree that we should add another picture. We will search to find a picture of a channel or a picture to add into the history section. KPhillips13 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #2

Great job guys! This was a really well designed and well written article. There is little to no grammatical error and each section is cohesive which provides the reader with good flow while reading. In each content section there is a good amount of information that provides the reader with what they need to know, they get to the point and don't repeat things. There are a great deal of links in the article and each section, so you definitely have done your work with that and it has shown. I like how you have included bullet points for the various categories, this makes the article not look so dense and gives the reader information that can be quickly found. In addition to that, I like how there is a small explanation in the section on Channel Blockers and Related Diseases that precedes the large sections that go into covering the information. This again allows for a quick and easy way to get information on the respective sections, as well as makes the article as a whole look less dense. The article has both images and a table that coincide with the content, that is they are placed next to the content so the reader can see them as they are reading the given section. This article is verifiable with no original research. It takes the point of being neutral and is not biased.

I looked at the first source titled P/Q-type calcium channel modulators. This was indeed a secondary review, and I know this because it was done by the British Journal of Pharmacology and it says Review. This was cited correctly by the group, as well as used properly. I counted a total of 7 references, and those coincided with the headings in the review itself. That is, the group used the main points that were in the review in their article, so there wasn't much more that needed to be added from this source. Overall, I have to say that this was a very good article and from reading it you can tell that a great deal of work was put into the article in order to get its current form. You guys have done a great job with this topic! (LucasTichawa (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)User:LucasTichawa)

Response to Primary Review #2: Thank you for your positive review! We agree that the bullet points help to keep the article easy to understand. Thank you for noticing our efforts to find good articles. We appreciate the time you took to review our article and one of the sources we used. KPhillips13 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #3

This article was indeed well written; I had a difficult time coming up with things to talk about. The history section may be moved earlier to provide a more chronological flow. The Basic Features section was very well done; I was able to create a mental image of it my mind which is saying something. I was able to find an image of an L-type calcium channel that could possibly be a helpful example of this type of channel (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L-type_calcium_channel.jpg). The Purkinje picture was great! The sections with lists certainly helped to clarify what was going on and keep the information concise enough to get the just of what was happening. The links were superb and many (maybe add one for ataxia I missed it I’m sorry and nucleotide substitution). The diseases section did a wonderful job linking and connecting the previous channel blockers mentioned in a way that you would already understand what was going on by the time you would read this portion. The diseases section also did well with basic disease outline, pathology, and take home message afterward. There does seem to be a lot of primary sources but it is understood that this is where most information on this type of topic would come from. The citations were formatted correctly and easy enough to find even though a linkable URL would have been nice as some were only abstracts and I could not find a good link on the last reference regarding the “Levetiracetam”. The source about the migraines was used well. There as a lot of material and you broke it down to the bare bones take home message. The coverage of this article was exceptionally broad and well done, the content seems stable with no edit wars, and the image is great and if you can consider the one listed above. What else can I say, great job! SCarolina55 (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review #3: Thank you for your response! First, we agree with the movement of the history section. We will put the history section towards the beginning. Second, thank you for the help finding a picture, however, we do not think the L-type calcium channel relates enough to include it in this article. However, we agreed that we should add another picture. Third, for the linking issue, we will link ataxia and nucleotide substitution. Thank you for catching those. Fourth, for the reference problem, we followed the Wikipedia reference rules and it does not include a URL link to the paper. We would recommend using google scholar to find the full length article. Thank you for all of your positive feedback! KPhillips13 (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary Review #4

This was mentioned many times already but great job overall, definitely think you covered all your bases well. However so that I actually provide some useful feedback I suppose the things that I noted would be the following. When you talked about the Selective peptide toxin w-agatoxin it tended to run on which is understandable because topics like this tend to. Maybe consider adding some bullet points like you did with the Non-selective Peptide toxins, I think it would make it easier to digest, also it would keep the flow of the article similar because I imagine two different people wrote those two sections. I really liked the therapeutics sections and related diseases since they made it a lot more relatable. I'd love to see if you have time more info about the diseases and their relation to P-type channels in a separate section in more detail for each one. Obviously that might be outside the scope of this project, I think it would be a nice touch however. Also following up with the theme of therapeutics and the diseases maybe some pictures of the disease like Dr.Mynlieff did with myasthenia gravis, to make it more relatable. I checked the fifth citation by Nair on CaV2.1 and judging from what I know about secondary sources this appears to be one. This seems from the authors many citations and their interpretations of others people's work to be able to be defined as secondary research. You seemed to be using the information from the article correctly as far as I could tell. So it seems to check out. On a final note, I noticed you didn't go to crazy with the links to citations, well you did have an ok amount, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a few more for the more scrupulous readers.--5602krauseb (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to Primary Review #4: Thank you for your review. First, we agree that the part on selective peptides is rather dense, however, we have chosen not use bullet points because it is about one type of toxin. We think that breaking up the paragraph would make it more difficult to understand. Second, in an effort to remain within the scope of this assignment as well as the general Wikipedia guidelines, we feel that we have used a sufficient amount of information about the diseases. We have chosen to link those diseases so if people want more information, they can just use the links. Third, we agree that we need more pictures and we will add another. Lastly, we will be adding a few more links to give the reader more background information if needed. KPhillips13 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #1

This article was extremely well written and easy to understand the massive amount of information. The large amount of in-text links could be very helpful to a layperson. There is an expansive range of sections and subsections all related to the topic and the images are relevant. As previously stated by reviewers above, possibly move the "History" section up to come after the lead paragraph. Also, in the third paragraph under the "Mutation Studies" section I'd advise not to use parentheses when describing the P-region of the channel; maybe add that information as part of the previous sentence? This was a very well-done article, nice work! Umm517 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #2

This article is great! If I had stumbled across it randomly I would have never guessed it to be part of a class project. I really liked how you guys were able to research and compile a large amount of information that focused specifically on P-type channels, rather than on calcium channels as a whole. If I were already well versed in the subject, I think I could enter this article and come out knowing a lot about P-type channels and what makes them distinctive from other channels. I know it can be difficult finding images for very specific scientific topics, but I liked the incorporation of images into the page and think both images are relevant and contribute to the text.

I really like the amount of space dedicated to the health-related aspects of P-type channels, but think that these sections sort of shadow over the mechanical aspects (how the channel actually works). I recommend adding on to the “Basic Features and Structure” portion and removing the “basic” part. Hopefully, this will be a detailed overview and not just a basic one! Lastly, while I somewhat agree with some of the previous reviewers about the placing of the “History” section, I went to a few other scientific articles and found that their History sections were likewise positioned towards the end. After all, most readers concerned with your topic are looking for the scientific aspects of P-type channels, and not necessarily the history behind them.Marq808 (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #3

Overall, the article was written in a clear and organised manner. Very good use of subdivisions, that help the reader follow the topic with ease. In the 'Channel distribution' section I would add in a description of what an antibody labelling entails. Also, I would add in a diagram or illustration showing how the channel generally works in the system. The article contained very good use of sources as well as terminology descriptions that are essential for the understanding of the reader. I would also move the 'History' section towards the beginning that way there is more of a background of the topic. Monibea11 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Monibea11Monibea11 (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #4

Great job! This article was really well written overall. You managed to convey a lot of information in a readable and well organized way. The subheadings were clearly defined and well organized and I really liked the use of bullet points. It was a nice way to break up information. I wouldn't change the organization or content at all just maybe think about adding another visual. There was a lot of written information, so another diagram or picture might be a nice way to break that up a little bit and to help explain some of the content. Otherwise awesome job! --Lambchop22 (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #5

Wow, really good job! I found this article really easy to read, you made it very accessible to laypeople. I really enjoyed reading the section about the selective blockers! A couple of suggestions: first, I don’t know if it is necessary to explain how we know/the experiment used to determine that it is P-type channels causing seizures (in the Seizure section). Just seemed a little out of place. Second, I would suggest moving the History section much earlier in the article, perhaps even before the basic structure and function. Otherwise, great job!Ehart25 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #6

I thought that this article was exceptional. There were minimal grammatical errors and everything seemed to flow well. The article overall was concise and clear. Excellent use of the gene box. I also thought that the images included in your article contributed well to the page. The most interesting section was related diseases because it relates common diseases whose pathways or causes are not often known to the general public and outlines in well in regards to the P-type channels. Despite the aforementioned issue regarding primary sources, there was overall appropriate usage of review-like information. The approach taken in writing the article seemed to reflect this. The only discrepancy was in actually describing some of the experiments in the related diseases section. A more general outline would better follow Wikipedia guidelines. Sydval612 (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Review #7

Really good article! In the basic features and structure section it is a little easy to get lost: maybe additional subheadings for the different subunits would make it a bit clearer. I think the explanation in this section is really good so you don’t have to change what you wrote: it’s just that one tends to skim over anything involving Greek letters! I really like how you have the channel distribution bulleted and linked: this makes it really easy to read. You also gave good explanations of how different compounds block the P-type channels. Finally, I agree with the other reviewer: the history section should be moved up to the top.Iutschig (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Image

The photo appears to be Hololena spp, probably H. curta, not Agelenopsis aperta. Hololena curta is also found in the LA basin and has Llinas found similar activity in the initial survey/screen of venoms. ChuckKristensen (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)