Talk:Developmental bioelectricity

Untitled

Please comment on the issues raised by the last reviewer. I don't agree this should got to wikibooks. I'd like to get this accepted. Alternatively as creator of this content you can just copy it over to the existing title and replace the redirect there. I can't do that as I'm not the author but you can. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed MERGE

In response to Bioelectricity merging with Bioelectromagnetics: We do not agree with these being merged. Bioelectricity and Bioelectromagnetics are distinct fields. Bioelectricity is about endogenous natural, not applied, fields. Moreover, it has no magnetic component - it concerns DC purely electric phenomena with no magnetic component or waves. The mechanisms of transduction are completely different. Ultra weak photon emission and electromagnetic effects on living systems are a totally distinct field from the study of endogenous ion flows. The communities, journals, and research agendas are quite different; it should not be mixed up in Wikipedia. This is the statement I have gotten from my boss Mike Levin (https://ase.tufts.edu/biology/faculty/levin/) Tiadeeharrison 10:11, 10 May 2018 (EST)

Please see

People who know something about electricity within organisms might be interested in Talk:Oral galvanism#Pseudoscientific diagnosis?. The main question is whether to split the article (a side effect of using different dental metals vs an event), or to explain it all on one page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Bio electric signal

Koi be 2402:8100:2053:8CE3:7E43:69BD:1E56:D716 (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there room to potentially talk about microbial bioelectricity? For example, microbial fuel cells? --Akirrowe (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if this dreadful article is actually about developmental biology [in Eukaryotes] as it claims, then the answer is definitively no; but it's so poorly written that it could indeed be about microbes, or ectoplasm, or Madame Blavatsky, and we'd all be none the wiser. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Tone

The article is written like a presentation at a conference. It should be re-written for a nonspecialist audience. Cerulean Depths (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the trouble; but the whole article strays across so many fields, and cuts across so many other articles, that it's hard to know where to begin with how unencyclopedic the whole monstrosity is. Well, let's give it a try. Here's just one sentence picked at random:

"[Role in cancer:] Excitingly, the ambivalence of polarity – depolarization as marker and hyperpolarization as treatment – make it conceptually possible to derive theragnostic (portmanteau of therapeutics with diagnostics) approaches, designed to simultaneously detect and treat early tumors, in this case based on the normalization of the membrane polarization."

"Excitingly" --- no, Wikipedia articles are not meant to express editorial excitement.

"the ambivalence of polarity" --- so this is an arty essay about a pathbreaking film from an exciting new director?

"conceptually possible to derive theragnostic ... approaches" --- along with existential contextualisations, iconoclastic juxtapositions, and postmodern neologisms?

44-word sentence.

Flesch-Kincaid grade level: 29.9; Flesch reading ease: 0 (college graduate)

Wikipedia suitability level: -99 (ok, I made that one up)

I suggest we ditch this sorry not-an-article per WP:TNT and try again from scratch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citation of primary sources

In addition to the matters of tone and readability (which are serious), as the tag at the top of the article says "What's with the overview? Why the vague statements and long lists of citations after some of them? (What are those citations about? Who wrote them? When? Why were those bits of work significant?) Why the professorial tone of talking down to the audience? etc. etc. etc." An editor saw fit to try to remove the tag today, without addressing the issue in any way. The citations mentioned have two major issues: 1) they are all primary research, not review papers (still less, systematic reviews of the quality of primary research); 2) there is massive over-citation in several places (6 to 10 refs for a claim), now tagged specifically, and quite heavy over-citation in many other places, with 3, 4, or 5 refs per claim throughout the article. Either the field is too recent and there simply aren't good textbooks and review articles that summarize the key facts that this article should be providing, or the article is wilfully using "exciting" primary materials, ignoring the reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Per the correct tag at the top of the article, this does need to be addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)