Talk:Pancreatic progenitor cell

Pancreatic progenitor cell was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 16, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Molecular Biology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Problematic GA review

A GA review was conducted for this article by an IP, which is against the rules (see WP:GANI—reviewers must be registered users who are logged in), so I have reverted the review and its results. Subsequent to the passage, a number of significant edits were made to the article by a brand new user to Wikipedia, CharlesMRNA, who may or may not be the same person as had completed the improper review. Under the circumstances, as both a new Wikipedian and an active editor of the article, CharlesMRNA is not eligible to conduct a review of the article; it will have to wait for an established registered user to do so, preferably one familiar with WP:MEDRS guidelines. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pancreatic progenitor cell/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It looks like some serious effort has gone into this article, particularly visible in the quality of references. I have made some tweaks on grammar and punctuation, which you are welcome to discuss if needed. Here are my comments on the article, from Embryology through Regulation of specification. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of Embryology does not have any inline citations.
"They can be observed at E9.0 to E9.5 during embryonic development." I don't know what this means, and following the wikilink doesn't help.
"All islet cells can be observed in the first trimester in human." The opening sentence of this paragraph suggests that it will be entirely about humans. Why does this sentence need to specify that again?
Why is PDX1 introduced in all capitals, whereas all other instances and genes in the article use the form Pdx1?
"These cells have been shown to have 28 genes regulating the cell cycle to be upregulated, showing that they are proliferative cells having the ability to replace and give rise to multiple cell populations in the pancreas." One should avoid starting a paragraph with an ambiguous phrase like "these cells." Does this refer to the title of the article, or of the many cell types mentioned in the previous paragraph?
"the gene Mnx1/Hlxb1 (Motor Neuron and pancreas homobox 1)." This article suggests the following edits (bolded): "the gene Mnx1/Hlxb9 (Motor Neuron and pancreas homeobox 1). There is another instance of "homobox" in this paragraph. Not sure if this is a typo or some obscure jargon.
The first paragraph of Regulation of specification does not have any inline citations.
Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, such as Sources ¶3, Regulation of specification ¶2, and Developing lineages ¶1. These should be expanded, merged, or deleted.

After two weeks and multiple attempts to contact contributors to the article, no attempt has been made to address any of these issues. As such, the GAN has failed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]