Talk:TBR1/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lhynard (talk · contribs) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC) ~ I will try to begin reviewing this article tonight. ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status:

Done Article has passed "quick-fail criteria". Beginning detailed assessment. ~ 00:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done History examined

Done Checked for disambig lnks

Done Checked for dead external links ~ 01:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Checked criterion 1a ~ 02:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Checked criterion 1b ~ 03:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Checked criterion 2a ~ 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Checked criterion 2b ~ 06:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Checked criterion 2c

Done Checked criterion 3

Done Checked criterion 4

Done Checked criterion 5 ~ 06:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Checking criterion 6

Pass Checking criterion 7: Article passes ~ 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment

1. Well-written:

1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. • Almost flawless grammar and extremely consistent punctuation—a very rare find indeed on Wikipedia! Good work.

• Under Discovery, TES-56 appears capitalized two different ways and should be consistent throughout.
• Similarly, the capitalization of TBR1 the protein is inconsistent. (The 1st anomoly I noticed was under Functions and mechanisms.)
• Under Functions and mechanisms, I would suggest, "...is a type of protein called a transcription factor, which..." or, "...is a protein, called a transcription factor, that...".
• Could "glutamatergic" be clarified or explained? particularly since there is no article for it (WP:TECHNICAL)
• "Cells that stop dividing (post-mitotic)..."—little explanations like this are very helpful to non-experts.
• ...And in fact the whole Axon guidance subsection is very clear and helpful.
• Ah, I see that "glutamatergic" is defined in Tissue and cellular distribution. Move the explanation earlier to its 1st use. Also, confirm the correct spelling.
• Phrases like, "It was shown that...," and, "It was discovered that...," can be left out, provided you cite—which you do. For example, under Mice, just say, "Tbr-1 is expressed by postmitotic...."
• I expect that the plural of "amphioxus" is "amphioxi". If so, it should be plural to correspond with "lancelets".
• I have moved several links, but I have not checked or moved them all. Try to ensure that links occur at (and usually only at) the 1st occurance of the concept. For example, "telencephalon" was un-linked in the first section, but linked in the very last sentence. Likewise, "GABA" was linked in the last section but introduced far earlier. Those are just examples; I think there were many more such cases. (WP:LINKS)
• I know that the standard rules of nomenclature for proteins named from genes are to capitalize the first letter and lowercase the rest. Genes on the other hand, are in all lowercase and italics. For example, the gene pksA codes for the protein PksA. However, there are countless exceptions. Please check from (non-webpage) sources what the correct format is and be consistent. (Websites, even official ones, often do not bother with proper stylizing of gene and protein names; however, printed journals almost always will.) Consistency is most important though, and this article has some naming inconsistencies throughout that should be fixed.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Except for my comment below about the defining sentence, the lead is excellent—especially at expressing why TBR1 is important.

• I would suggest that the opening sentence be modified. As it stands now, TBR1 is defined as the product of a gene. I would change the defining statement to be about the protein itself rather than about its relation to its gene—for example, "T-box, brain, 1 is a transcription factor protein important in vertebrate embryo development." Otherwise, it's not really a definition. It would be like saying, "The Washington Monument is a building made from a blueprint by the architect...." (WP:MOSBEGIN)

Helpful comment from Boghog

• Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, the scope of these articles is about both the protein and the gene encoding the protein. In addition, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

<recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting.

If I understand the Gene Wiki project correctly, its purpose to make numerous stubs, with the intent that those stubs are expanded into full articles. The purpose of the consensus policy you listed—it seems to me— was to come up with a template opening sentence for a generic protein stub, which is quite diffetent from a good article. I think that it is a very good thing that projects such as Gene Wiki exist, but having developed into a full article now, I don't think it is fair to consider this a "Gene Wiki" article. (If anything, it now falls under the "jurisdiction" of WP:MCB.)

I still strongly hold to my opinion that the opening sentence could be much improved—even more so now that you have shared that the "that" was meant to be nonrestrictive. Nonrestrictive clauses should always be set off with commas, and most style editors will tell you to use "which" instead of "that".

In any case, I have already passed this article for criteria 1. My suggestion would be to improve the defining sentences, but it is only a suggestion. If it is not changed, it will not affect my decision to pass or fail the article.

I do sincerely thank you for commenting. I think it is good and more fair to have as many involved in a GA review as possible. Regards ~ Lhynard (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is technical, but I do not think that can be avoided. ~~But since it is technical, I think the link to cortex should be moved earlier to "cortical" and corrected to target the specific cortex intended.~~
• I would rename Functions and mechanisms to simply Functions and perhaps cut some of the mechanistic statements, as the mechanisms are all discussed in detail under Gene regulation below.
• An additional issue with the lead I forgot to mention last night. ~~The alternative names for TBR1 should also be bolded (MOS:BOLDSYN).~~ [ Done Lhynard (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)] ~~In addition, you should make each synonym into a redirect page to this article.~~ [ Done Lhynard (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)][reply]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. • You even listed your See alsos alphabetically.

2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). • Ref. 2 and 4 are the same.

2c. it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). • not sure that the section Modulation of NMDAR adds to the article
• Science articles are very difficult to write without becoming too technical. You have done a very good job for the most part. The one exception, in my opinion, is section 3. Most of what is said in this section is repeated later in the article and more clearly. (See also my above comment for criterion 1b Re: the title of the section.)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. • The image Reeler_ontogenesis.png does not have a source listed, which makes me suspicious that it is actually free. The uploader is no longer active, which furthers my suspicion. On the other hand, I have no doubts you loaded in in godd faith. One easy, safe option would be to replace the image with the two found on Reeler, which are more clearly sourced.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• "Neocorticogenesis" in the caption of the second image should be wikilinked.
• More images might be helpful—especially in a technical article such as this. Some suggestions (if they can be found):

• a labeled image or diagram of the neo- or cerebral cortex?

• a labeled image or diagram of the olfactory bulbs?

• a diagram of a neuron (See, for example, Axon.) for the Functions section?

• Your second image shows the 6 layers of the cortex that you often refer to; it might be helpful to reference the figure in the text the first time you mention these in Tissue and cellular distribution.
• The second image should also include alt text. (WP:ALT)

7. Overall assessment. In my opinion, this is a good Wikipedia article. I congratulate all of you on your efforts at improving and expanding it. The biggest area of improvement would be with the links, which, as I noted above, should be used only at their first occurance and not repeated. This change will greatly improve the undertandability of the text.

Extra Comments:

Disambig link: While it will have no bearing on whether the nomination passes or fails, please fix the link cortex to the specific "cortex" to which you are referring. ~ Lhynard (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Done 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]