Talk:Polyclonal B cell response/GA1

GA review 10 May 2008

• Well written: some things to improve
  • "treatment meted out to" this expression is hard to understand
    • Why is the bit about secondary immune response talking about memory cells? The text is confusing.
  • "This binding requires both the paratope and the epitope to undergo slight conformational changes in each others' " "These"= the weak binding or both?
  • "Of course, some or the other clone" something is misspellt or missing
  • "but the clone as of now would consist of naive cells, and because of an unfortunate phenomenon, such cells are not allowed to proliferate by the weakly binding antibodies produced by the priorly exposed clone" reword into something more comprehensible (and cite)
  • Don't put sup tags around references, it makes lines overlap
• Verifiable: not quite there
  • Specific statistics need citations (you have already added citation needed to the two spots)
  • "1 in 1700 cell divisions" need source
  • the link to [1] is broken and lacks access date.
  • "Such epitopes are known as conformational epitopes and tend to be longer in length than the linear epitopes" could use a scholarly cource.
  • "only when the peptide in question would be small (to the order of 10 amino acids long)" citation pls.
  • "Since these native molecules will not be eliminated in course of time" is this covered by one of the references?
• Broad: yes
• Neutral: yes
• Stable: yes, should be ok, even with listing at WP:Peer review as well
• Pictures: some tings to do
  • Image:Stimulation of specific clone of B cells and its proliferation.PNG (the primary response box and the soluble antibodies in particular) and Image:Original antigenic sin.png should have references

Remarks that aren't part of the GA review:

• I prefer black text and white background in illustrations, it makes it easier to read.
• Many of the bolded words would be better in italics.
• I don't think the large white spaces between paragraphs is a good idea.
• The references could be written in a tidier way, e.g. with template:cite journal
• ancillary - difficult word, could you reword?
• The article is divided nicely into sections, but the titles aren't very helpful if you are looking the section for a specific fact, in great part because they are so long that one wouldn't read the table of contents
• It wouldn't hurt to also get the basic things cited, especially if you can find free papers.

I'm putting it on hold. Narayanese (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've failed the GA nom, as the article is still lacking in terms of clarity.

Some specific remaining problems:

• The description of affinity maturation is much too hard to understand, especially regarding the involvement of memory B cells.
• The antigen-receptor (epitope-paratope) interaction section's two first sentences are still in so poor shape that they can be misleading.
• The clonal selection picture's page still needs its description page referenced.

Narayanese (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to GA-assessment by Narayanese and renomination

I've failed the GA nom, as the article is still lacking in terms of clarity.

Some specific remaining problems:

• The description of affinity maturation is much too hard to understand, especially regarding the involvement of memory B cells.

 Done I have rewritten most of the section. —KetanPanchal^taLK 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The antigen-receptor (epitope-paratope) interaction section's two first sentences are still in so poor shape that they can be misleading.

 Done Shifted the section, so that now it fits better in the context of the entire article. Also, rewrote the opening of the section providing better context. And, added a note on recognition of pathogens by the macrophages employing TLRs. —KetanPanchal^taLK 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The clonal selection picture's page still needs its description page referenced.

 Done I've provided reference for the caption. Don't know if it would be appropriate to have a superscripted reference for the description page that lies in the domain of "Wikimedia commons". Moreover, I have never seen the description of any image being referenced up till now. —KetanPanchal^taLK 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the above changes have made many changes in the text trying put things better in perspective and context. Have put the "unalphabetical" glossary in a navigation bar, so that it does not interfere with the overall readability of the article.

Hope that these changes satisfy you.

As I have addressed all the objections raised resulting in the failure of the article to meet the "good article" standards, I am renominating it.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New changes

Hello Narayanese! I've made some changes to the article keeping in view your suggestions. Do let me know if these satisfy you to any degree, and also what else requires to be done.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Narayanese replies to new changes

Since it has had so large changes I won't be able to go through it until friday or so when my exam is over. You could always renominate (minus the cleanup tag) in the meantime, other editors are probably better at layout and grammar than me.

One thing I noticed: you imply leukocytes don't differentiate when they change tissue (first section), I thought monocytes did. And I would recommend against anything over three lines per entry in that section. Narayanese (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Secondly, all the best for your exam.

Yes, you are right about monocytes, they differentiate. But, a monocyte will still retain its function, i.e., differentiating into a macrophage irrespective of whether it is, say in the liver or the lungs. All the macrophages (or related cells) they differentiate into serve the same functions, viz., nonspecific phagocytosis, antigen presentation and production of interleukins again irrespective of the harboring tissue. What you have mentioned is somewhat an exception to the statement, but for readers unbeknown to this concepts, explaining a generalized concept is better than highlighting an exception.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)