Wikipedia:Peer review/Active zone/archive1

Active zone

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know the readability of the article. Specifically, I want to know if some terms come across as confusing. I would also like to know if anything needs to be elaborated on better explained. Please don't hesitate to be very critical, I would appreciate any and all criticisms.

Thanks, Studentne (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. WHile the article looks quite good for a first effort, it needs a fair amount of work to conform with the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the 1970 naming seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
• The article has a least one diambiguation link that needs to be fixed - see the toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page.
• Article needs more references, for example the first two subsections in "Vesicle pools" have zero refs.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Are any of the articles cited available online? DOI or PUBMED information should be given if available.
• Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD in that they repeat the article name (which should be avoided if at all possible)
• Per WP:See also the See also section usually does not repeat links aalready in the article
• The table in Proteins of the Active Zone has no refs and has only two entries in the second column - either add more to the second column, or convert this to prose.
• The article calls the protein "Bassoon" but the figures use "Basson"
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)