Talk:Pancreatic progenitor cell/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
- 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)