User talk:Kajax3/sandbox
Both sections are really well organized and are easy for a first-time viewer of the subject to follow, especially with the mechanism section. With the tetanus toxin section, it does follow a logical flow, but it may be more helpful to a first time reader to plainly state that the light chain is where the action is at as far as the effect of TeNT. If they were to read the section a second time, they would pick up on why the second paragraph in that section is all about the light chain, so its not a major issue, but definitely something to consider. I feel like someone with some background knowledge in the subject of tetanus would easily learn more through visiting this wikipage. There is also a solid logical flow for both sections. The contents for each section are pretty well balanced. However, in the mechanism section, it is hard to make the connection between GABA neurotransmitter and the actual mechanism. I would add in a sentence that states that GABA neurotransmitter is the neurotransmitter that is inhibited by TeNT when TeNT cleaves synaptobrevin and thus inhibits exocytosis. The objectives for each subsection are definitely met, and I didn’t notice any overemphasis of a particular subject. I also feel like all of the terms that need to be linked are linked. However, a few of them do not have pages, so you may want to unlink these terms. The images are great and really add to the value of the page. Also, you have a wide variety of sources and they all seem to be from reputable journals. As far as the structure and formatting goes, it all seems to be very well put together. There are some spots in the article that could use commas, particularly after transitions and when you add information to a term or subject. For example, you would want a comma after “Once the vesicle is in the inhibitory interneuron”. Overall, this page is excellent and meets the assigned criteria. Skgunnell (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This article was very well written and it is evident that you put in the research. I especially thought the figure was helpful in visualizing what is actually happening in the article. For specific feedback, there are a few things I think that could improve the quality of this article. First, this article would be very useful to someone who was seeking to learn more about tetanus toxin. However, I don't feel like it would be a very userfriendly article for someone new to the topic. One suggestion that might help would be placing more emphasis on the specific topic for each paragraph and writing it in a way that is simple to follow. I feel like the first paragraph clearly explains the structure and function of tetanus toxin and is fairly easy to follow. However, the next two paragraphs are a little harder to follow. The second seems to be either about transportation of tetanus toxin or the function of the heavy chain. While both of these topics are important, it would be useful to a first time reader of this topic to have a general idea to latch on to. The last paragraph seems to be about the function of the light chain. If so, it would be helpful to state this clearly at the beginning of the paragraph. It may be a good idea to have the second and third paragraph focus on the functions of the heavy chain and light chain respectively.
A few more ideas that I feel may help the reader would be to spend a sentence explaining synaptobrevin. It is linked to another wikipage, but since synaptobrevin is so prevalent in the article, giving a little bit of background information right in the article would be beneficial. Additionally, exocytosis, VAMP and botulinim neurotoxin B could all use links if they are available. Also, in the second paragraph, there is mention of "a more specific receptor". This general term kind of breaks the flow of the rest of the article. If possible, find the name of that receptor or at least explain its location. Any additional background information on that receptor would help maintain the flow of a well identified pathway for tetanus toxin. Finally, I am not sure if you need to put this in your subsection, but there wasn't a clear biophysics aspect in the subsection. That may be more important for the oral presentation than the article though.
Grammar-wise, everything was ok, but there were several comma mistakes. Below are the corrected parts of sentences I found that had comma mistakes: Tetanus toxin, or TeNT, For the light chain of TeNT to be activated, one atom of zinc must be bound to every molecule of toxin. entering the low energy conformation, which is the target for NSF binding. This cleavage of synaptobrevin is the final target of TeNT, and even in low doses
Great Job! If you would like me to review this article again after you edit it, just let me know! Skgunnell (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)