Talk:Calyx of Held

1415jacobsx (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Goal

The goal was to provide an general understanding of the calyx of Held. It does not have a significant amount of secondary literature, so our goal was to cover a broad topic to give general understanding of the topic. We maintained the first two paragraphs from the introduction, and added all of the following paragraphs and sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.77.200 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review

1. Overall this is a very well written article although the language at times is very technical and flew over my head. I understand that at times it is the only was to explain things but links to those concepts might be a thing to do such as with medial nucleus and globular bushy cells. If you could make those links to their wikipedia pages that might help not overwhelm the reader as they can simply click on it and take a quick glance as to what those technical terms are referring to. 2. I checked the Tsuchitani (1996) article. Keep in mind it is not a review article bur rather a primary source so you may encounter resistance to using it. I personally, for the use it was put to in your page, have no problem with it since its not so much dealing with a medical situation but instead is just giving information as to the process of input to the interaural level detector. 3. This article hits on several aspects of this topic however I do suggest to consider putting in more under research importance if possible. Not why its easy to study but why it should be studied in the first place. 4. The article is very neutral in viewpoint. No need to expand further on that 6. I like the illustrations but just for stylistic purposes of my personal preference, might there be a way to make the AMPA image (second image posted) a tad smaller? It covers an awkward amount of space AAPhysiology (talk)

Hey, we thank you for your feedback. We are taking it all into consideration. We are unable to establish a wikilink for the globular bushy cells, as no wikipedia article exists for such a page. We did have a link to the cochlear nucleus which does address the globular bushy cells. Tsuchitani (1997) was only used to confirm that the calyx is used for interaural detection, this is a fact, not necessarily a finding of the study. The research importance section was reserved for why it is important as a model for study, not why it should be studied. In general, the rest of the page gives reference to why it should be studied. 1415jacobsx (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, I think that this article was well written, and the amount of visual aids was great and helped the page. There were a couple minor grammar errors in the article which could have been fixed, such as one time when a word was repeated when it was not supposed to be. Also a couple portions of the paper could use extra wiki links, such as the section about the superior olives. Many people will not know what some of the structures and such are in the body, so a wiki link would help to potentially give them a better idea. Other than little clean up stuff like that though, the article looks great. Othrowt (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review

This is a very well organized article. the sections are very helpful in this organization and the subtopics within the sections are relevant and grouped well, such as talking about each channel as a separate subtopic rather than as one large paragraph. In addition, The visual aid was very helpful and well placed throughout the text. The pictures help to breakup the article, which makes it easier to read. The article looks great so far!6487heffroa (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 2

I thought this article was written very well and had a lot of good information. I thought it was cool to learn about a system in the auditory system that was so specific for certain low frequency sounds. The structure of the article is great and it is really in depth. The article can be harder to follow because of how scientific the information is, so I would suggest making the language a little easier to read for the public. Overall, I think it's a great article and the images keep the reader engaged. Awesome work guys! Rayschneider0 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)User:Rayschneider0Rayschneider0 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 3

This article was very well written and was packed with information. The use of images was very good and it made it much easier to visualize what was being talked about throughout the article. Everything was described with great detail but the article did seem a bit length. I'm not sure if other pages could be linked to instead in order to save some space but if so I think it might help. Again this article was really good and beyond informative. 2280zanont (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Reviewer!

Hi guys! The article overall is very well written, just a few things I noticed/would change:

1. You guys have some minor grammar mistakes from time to time. It could use a little proofreading in that sense. For example, in the introduction section, the sentence talking about Hans Held has one too many commas. The last sentence in the introduction section doesn't make sense, it sounds like you accidentally left out a word...

2. In the introduction section, I would leave out some of the technical detail, "The calyx of Held holds vesicles containing glutamate on the presynaptic terminal, the vesicles are are released upon stimulation (originating in the auditory system). The glutamate then binds to two known glutamate receptors, AMPA- and NMDA receptors." I would recommend adding a little more history, or just some kind of general overview of the article.

3. Like the secondary reviewer had stated, there article is quite technical, especially in the sections dealing with the ion channel development. In the calcium channel development section, I would recommend moving around some of the pictures, because you have to scroll over to the right to see the last picture. Just a minor formatting thing.

4. If possible, you may want to expand a bit on research importance, since this is of significant importance to the article as a whole. Potential researchers could be looking at this page!

Other than that, I checked the Nakamura source, and it's legit. It was pretty easy to find the part you used in your article, and it was a good choice of article. Also, your use of illustrations really added to the overall picture of the article. Makes it easier to follow. Also, as the secondary reviewer mentioned, several sections could use some more wikilinks, such as the last few sections on postsynaptic glutamate receptors, presynaptic vesicle endocytosis, and response.

Good luck! Awhiterussian (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, we thank you for your input. The introduction section was edited. It is a combination of the original user's work and ours, and we did our best to mesh our contribution with the other users contributions with what is important in the first section. We looked at the images, that is the best way to put them since there are 5 of them. If they are put differently they tend to run down the edge. This is just a formatting thing, it will look different from device to device. Research importance has been coming up with a few reviews, however we have believe that we have made a focused section on the aspects of research. This section could be added to, but it would require significantly more research, possibly for further development in the future. Our suggestion would be to find examples of research it was used for and highlighting all its uses. 1415jacobsx (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Another Primary Review

Overall, this is a great article. I learned a lot from reading it and you seemed to have accomplished your goal. The article seems to have followed the Wikipedia guidelines and meets the 6 requirements for a good article. A few things I noticed throughout that could use some editing are as follows:
1. There are some minor grammatical mistakes ranging from forgotten words to missing commas.
2. A few more internal wiki links could be added. For example, the “globular bushy cells”. Most readers will not know what this structure is, including most of us in this course.
3. Another thing I noticed was that the page had to be scrolled to the right under the calcium channel development section to see one of the pictures. Another reviewer mentioned this previously and it is just a minor detail that would help with the ease of viewer navigation.
4. It may also benefit having a section on disease states or disorders that the calyx of held affects if it is not working properly, but this would just be an additional bonus to the article.
5. It may also be of benefit to state the role sodium channels play in the calyx within the first paragraph so the purpose of the section is clear.
Overall, I really think it is clear you put time and effort into your research and writing of the article. The sources look reliable and the organization really helps the article flow. I looked at the first source, “Dynamic development of the Calyx of Held Synapse” and it looks like the group working on the article used it properly and did not plagiarize from what I could tell. The article was cited properly. It may be of value to use the article more than once, as it does seem to contain some good information, but perhaps the other listed sources have better information and were used more frequently instead because of this. It isn't necessary, just a suggestion. It is easy to read and follow the article’s purpose. The pictures were helpful and added something extra to help explain certain things.
Great work and I hope you find this review helpful!

Our group thanks you for your time in reviewing our article! As for the grammatical errors, we are going to do a group final edit and read through to make sure we haven't missed anything basic of that nature. Thanks for the heads up. As for the globular bushy cells link- there is no wiki link to this, as there has not been a page written up on the subject. We have a great many links already, but we will consider adding more to help out the reader when necessary. As for the photo layout comment, another primary reviewer had issue with this; it seems that layout formatting varies by device (phone, imac, windows). We prefer to keep it this way as the horizontal images pan out nicely on our screen and do not make the article longer than it already is. We have a fairly substantial amount of images already and do not want to make them take over by adding more vertical images, if that makes sense. We will take into consideration the disease section you suggested, though we do have a lot of info on our page already. We do not want to bite off more than we can chew; were looking at quality of content vs length of content. We are looking into it as a group, but a disease section may open up a whole other article topic that may be to deep to delve into for the content purposes of the calyx. Thanks you for suggestion 5, we will reword that to make it more clear in our final editing! 5448martinm (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review

Overall, this is a very well done article! I looked back at the page's history and saw that before you guys worked on it, the page was only one paragraph long. It is amazing to see how you were able to expand it to what it is today. I noticed that you guys used some very technical language, but overall I thought you were still able to make it easy to read and follow. Especially helpful for readability was the effective use of subcategories to divide up the article and prevent it from becoming a giant block of text.

The biggest issue I saw was the layout of the images you used. While it is good to use many images, I don't think you necessarily need to include diagrams for all of the neurotransmitters involved, especially if it appears that the pictures are cluttering too much space on the page. Other than that, I think you just need to fix some minor grammatical mistakes and make sure you categorize the article. Marq808 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments about technical language; we were glad that you were still able to follow along and read the info present despite the acronyms used. We were hoping that a general, but close, reading of the "complicated" information would be able to be grasped by the reader,as you demonstrated. Thanks for the feedback and we will look into the neurotransmitter photos since this a recurring comment! :) 5448martinm (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary Review

Overall, I thought this was a really insightful topic and article. It was very thorough, included a lot of great information, and there was clearly a lot of work put into it. I thought the use of wiki links and images was particularly good - they really helped me (and probably other readers) understand the information in the section, especially when the material became more scientific and background information was needed. One thing I thought would be interesting to add would be a section about the effects of mutations in this synapse - do mutations lead to any kinds of physiological states or diseases? In terms of the 6 Wikipedia criteria for a good article:

1) Well-Written

Overall, I would say that you guys did a good job writing this article. However, I did catch some minor grammatical errors (mostly just punctuation/commas and minor issues similar to that) that could easily be fixed just by reading over the article and proofreading it once more. The general formatting of the article was very good also; it included the necessary contents and the layout was appealing and formatted correctly.

2) Verifiable with no original research

Your group's use of sources also looked good, as far as I could tell. You used in-line citations correctly, and the source I looked at was a secondary review and very reliable as it published in the Annual Journal of Physiology in the last five years. I did, however, see one source that was printed in 1893 (source 2), and if you haven't already done so, it may be a good idea to look over this source again to make sure there isn't newer research that could be used for the material in that article.

3) Broad in its coverage

Although overall this article was very well written and informative, I thought it got a little technical at times. Someone with limited background information on the material or in the topic of neuroscience in general may have a hard time reading about this topic. Although you did use wiki links well in some places, I thought that more could be incorporated throughout, especially in the mechanism section. Something else I believe would help this is to pause the article at times and perhaps explain the background information or add more figures if applicable. Overall, I thought that the coverage was well done!

4) Neutral

This article was clearly written and with no bias.

6) Illustrated

Awesome job with illustrations! I found them very helpful and informative while reading, and they were located in appropriate areas to really help supplement your material!

Review of Source

I reviewed source "The Calyx of Held Synapse: From Model Synapse to Auditory Relay". I thought this was a great choice of source to use - it was recent (2011) and was published in a reliable journal. Furthermore, it was a review and not primary/original research. This source was also good because it provided a lot of material for your group and seemed to be a source of a lot of good information. Because of this, I think it was really excellent how your group incorporated it into a variety of the subsections (structure, development, etc) - it shows that your group worked together really well and used the source to your full advantage, instead of just taking a small amount of material from it for one section. I learned a lot about the Calyx of Held synapse just from reading this one source! Additionally, from what I could tell, the source wasn't plagiarized and was cited correctly.

In conclusion, I thought your group did an excellent job on this assignment! The article was easy to follow, thorough, laid out in an appealing format, and made good use of the material you had to work with. Great job, I learned a lot! KateSage (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! Regarding your suggestion for a section about mutations in the calyx, we initially had a subsection addressing this topic. However, we were unable to find substantial secondary reviews regarding this topic. We see this as a possible place of future improvement for this article when understanding of mutations has surfaced. Regarding the 1893 article, this was the original study by Held that coined the term calyx of Held. We felt it fitting to cite the original article, not for the information it provides as a primary informative source, but rather a general understanding of where the research began. Other reviews of our article have brought up the technicality issues regarding some our sections, and we are definitely giving attention to the this fact. However, the terms and the mechanisms involved are inevitability going to surpass the knowledge of the average science reader. We hope to incorporate enough wiklinks (when available) to provide enough information for a thorough understanding. Thanks again for the suggestions! Specialtexas (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why the sudden surge of interest?

If people are participating here as part of a class or something, they should say so.

My comment: please find a picture of the calyx; the other pictures are good for what they are, but don't clarify what this thing looks like. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Review 4

(Originally under the section "Secondary Review" above. Epic Genius (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC))

This article is very well organized, however, it was challenging to read. I think you demonstrated that you have a good understanding of the material, but I think more wikilinks would be helpful so we can understand it too! You added many wikilinks as it is, but I think adding a few in the areas where there may not be as many would be beneficial. I thought the functions section was very well written, clear, and concise. In addition, the visual aids were useful in understanding the material. There were minor grammatical errors, but overall, I thought it was a great article. CateNicole (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)