Talk:Polyclonal B cell response

Good article

I just came to recommend it as a featured article, but I see that already has been discussed. I'm not sure if I'm really qualified to edit the article to make it so. I could do some fact-checking and copy editing.

Jdoelder (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

History section

I've significantly expanded the history section. Also, have added and reorganized the images. Modified the lead a bit. I'd love some feedback. —KetanPanchal^taLK 10:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal B cell response

Hi Ketan. Unfortunately, I'm moving house today so won't be able to help out right away. I'll try and take a look a little later if the article is still in FAR. Good luck with the review!!!! ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 17:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

:-( But, of course, you've got to move your house. All the best with it.

:-) You're the first person to address me as Ketan on Wikipedia, which I thoroughly liked.

As such technically the article is FAC (nominated for the first time).

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 17:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

I can see that you have spent a lot of time researching and preparing this article, and I commend you on the job you've done in explaining such a highly technical concept. However, I think the major issue with this article, and one that will probably prevent it from becoming an FA, is that it isn't written in summary style. You've attempted to explain essentially the entire immune response in an article that should be quite a bit more focused. Imagine how someone might arrive at this article, and what they might be looking to learn here. They probably didn't type "polyclonal B-cell response" into the search bar, odds are likely that the reader has arrived here via some other more general article where (in an ideal world) they learned about general immunological concepts. The important questions I would be looking to this article for answers are: "What do you mean by polyclonal response? how is this different from the regular B-cell response that I just read about?", "Why do we need this kind of response?", "How does the immune system make it happen?".

But, with regards to the introduction, it just takes too long to get to the point (i.e. "an effective immune response often involves the production of many different antibodies by many different B cells against the same antigen"). The section entitled "B-cells" is, again, too broadly applied. Most of this information should already be covered in the B cell article, Essentially I think the information here, in it's current form, doesn't really improve the reader's understanding of the polyclonal response. It should be incorporated into the other sections, where required, the rest should be moved or incorporated into other articles, leaving only the information specifically about the polyclonal response.

The next two sections are much more appropriate inclusions for this article. These should clearly be the longest, and the most detailed sections. But here I feel like I'm getting a summary of what makes up the polyclonal response, and why it is important. I also feel like the flow of information is off, almost like you've told me the solution to a problem ("Basis") before I knew it existed ("Significance").

There are also some grammatical issues, and imprecise language that need to be taken care of. I don't want to/have time to take over the article, but if you would like I can try my hand at some reorganization of the article in user space. You tell me what you think, and we'll go from there. --DO11.10 (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

B cells in vertebrates

I had a look around to see what vertebrate have B cells, given that text at the top of the page. I assume the polyclonal response is always founds where there are B cells. Sharks have them (PMID 18578572, PMID 15106876) but lampreys don't (PMID 17875388). Perhaps you should write write the scope of the article as jawed vertebrates? I rewrote the scope text at the top as jawed vertebrates. Narayanese (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Polyclonal response/GA2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Polyclonal response/GA2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8 § Polyclonal response/GA2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)