Satellite cell (glial) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
subst:PR/archive I've listed this article for peer review because I am a student at Boston College currently working on a project for my Neuroscience course. We are trying to improve many of the stub class neuroscience articles. My group worked on the Satellite cell (glial) page. We were hoping to get any feedback possible in order to make the article the best it can be! Any comments or suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, LaurenMalishchak (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Antony–22's comments
Good job on this article so far! It is very well-referenced, which is an important thing. I have a couple of comments:
- A better title for this article might be "Satellite glial cell", since this is the term used throughout the article (as an abbreviation), and it's discouraged for articles to have a parenthetical notation unless there's no other way to disambiguate it from some other article.
- In the hatnote, I'd change "the non-glial progenitor cells" to "the progenitor cells in muscle tissue" or something similarly more specific.
- The "Location" section is a bit short; it should be expanded or perhaps combined into some other section.
- The "Anatomy" section is a bit long and should be split into subsections, similar to how the "Roles in health issues" section is set up.
- The "Physiological role" and "Pharmacological properties" are again on the short side. You might consider combining them as subsections under a larger "Function" section. I'm sure there's also more expansion that could go into this section.
- The "Research directions" section could also be combined into a "Function" section, but be careful with the tone of this section. Statements like "researchers hope to give more time and attention to the SGCs" and "X will likely be explored and definitively characterized" and "Y must also be explored" are subjective statements, and should be attributed as someone's opinion from a specific source. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we should be careful about statements on what might happen in the future.
- The External Links section is usually used for links to websites rather than direct links to images, and also there shouldn't be any wikilinks to the school names in the listing, just the link. Per MOS:APPENDIX, the External Links section should also be after the References section.
- As a general item, it's encouraged to include secondary sources such as reviews and book chapters when writing scientific articles on Wikipedia. Secondary sources provide guidance into keeping the article neutral and balanced in choosing which primary research articles to include. Of course, notable primary sources should still be cited. See WP:SECONDARY for more exposition, although this policy is not specifically geared towards scientific articles.
In all, I can see this is the result of a very substantial effort, and I hope you continue to improve Wikipedia articles after your assignment is completed. :-) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)