Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patrick V1, Willc22, Mira pasawala. Peer reviewers: NirmPatel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gah?

This article is next to impossible to understand!

Oligomous (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed revision of the article can be found in the sandbox of Mira Pasawala.

Patrick V1 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have only been linking words once even if they are used multiple times throughout the text. Is that a correct way of doing that? Mira pasawala (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Would a "see also" page be helpful in this case? Mira pasawala (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think the charts on the bottom are helpful or unnecessary especially the bottom one? 02:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Mira pasawala (talk)

Primary review

I picked up on a few grammar mistakes here and there, nothing too major though. Without any prior knowledge of opioid receptors or their function in the brain, this article could be pretty hard to understand. Overall, though, very well written (sounds really cohesive!). For the amount of information present, the number of images worked really well, but could feel free to add more (if possible).

I looked at source 3 (the ScienceDirect one); definitely a secondary article. Based off of the information in the article, I think you could've added some more info. For example, you could have included some more information about transduction: the article went into it a lot (talked about effects on calcium and potassium channels, as well as adenylate cyclase inhibition).

Throughout, I felt like you all could have added some more information on some of the topics, since everything is relatively vague/briefly introduced. This seems like one of those topics where there's too much information to sift through, so it's understandable.

Hope these suggestions help! Overall, I think it's a really good article! AshleyPT (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review 1 Response

Thanks for your input! We proofed the article to check for grammar mistakes and added phrases to make it clearer. Regarding the information from source 3, we added description of the transduction mechanism of the opioid receptor. Throughout the article we did add some information; however, endomorphins are currently a subject of research and a limited amount of information (outside of primary literature) is available on their function.

Secondary Review

Good article with solid information. It was interesting to learn that endomorphins can be potential substitute for analgesics and morphine, but with less severe side effects. Also, the picture of the opioid receptor was a great addition. Thepaopao (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review

Great article! I have a few suggestions.

This article is loaded with information and can get hard to follow in places. You might have to either cut some information or explain the information for the general public to understand. For example, the part about it being a g-protein receptor in the "opioids and receptors" section.

The clinical application section is very well written.

PTRK22 (talk)PTRK22 —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review

Overall, it's a good article!

There are a few typos that I'm sure can be fixed after proofreading. I also would suggest adding a photo of the structure of an endomorphin in the "structure" section, just because that section is relatively small. I thought the "clinical application" section was really good and interesting! Mig0423 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There are two photos to the right of the structure section. And thanks, we will proofread it a few more times.Willc22 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review

1. Well Written
This article is well organized but it has a lot of scientific language that may be hard for some to follow. I realize this is necessary to fully explain the topic but it may be helpful to try to break the topic down and explain it in simpler terms in the introduction. As it stands right now I think most people would have to click multiple links in the introduction to understand what endomorphins are (unless they have a background in the topic). The rest of the article is well written with only one or two minor grammatical errors and the links are well placed throughout to help those with no background.
2. Verifiable with no original research- Yes
3. Broad in its coverage
Yes. I think this is one of the strengths of this article. You explain nicely the structure and function and then apply them accordingly in the last section.
4. Neutral-Yes
6. Illustrated
Yes. The pictures in the structure section are especially helpful.
Reference Number 6
This article is a secondary source. It also appears that the authors did a very good job of pulling out the important information of the reference, even though there was a lot to sift through, and integrating it in a way that makes sense in relation to the rest of their article.ThayerM12 (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review 2 Response

Hi there ThayerM12! Thank you for your input! In the introduction we outlined the content of each section and described said content and in greater detail and clarity in the sections themselves. We proofed the article for grammatical errors and if you do see anymore please let us know. Have a fantastic night!

Secondary Review

I enjoyed reading your article! Strong points were the sections on structure/function and especially clinical application. However, I would suggest a stronger lead summarizing sentence, that would better encompass the entirety of the article. I would also suggest cleaning up the scientific jargon, as it was difficult to understand. Other than that, great article! Isabella3501 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review

Lead Section

For this section of the article, I thought that a lot of the information provided was very helpful and useful towards understanding the overall topic of endomorphins. However, the portion where it went into depth of the amino acid sequence for each of the endomorphins I was curious as to why that was included. What was the purpose of that information in the lead? Maybe if there was an explanation related to why that particular amino acid sequence begets its function then there would be more appreciation for that information in the lead.

Opioids and receptors

Grammatical error in the last sentence of the second paragraph "bee" should be "been". Overall I thought that this section was good, but maybe a little more information could be provided. There is a ton of information and I think this section could go into a bit more depth so that the general laypeople could understand this more thoroughly. For instance, when discussing the G protein-coupled receptor someone without a scientific background wouldn't be able to understand what that means. I appreciate the hyperlink, however, maybe a brief introduction to how this is important to the function would be helpful. This would also tie together some of the subsections in a more cohesive manner.

Structure

As I mentioned in the lead section, a further description regarding why the amino acid structure is important could be helpful. I think further development of this section would be beneficial to the overall article.

Function

The second sentence of this section is really great, however, I think it could be broken down into two sentences to make it flow better. The last sentence of this section would be a bit difficult to understand if not from a science background. I think the information is great and super important to the article, however, I think further elaborating could provide more clear understanding.

Location

A minor grammatical error in the second to last sentence. I think this section is overall good and provides a quick but complete overview of the information.

Clinical application

The last sentence of the first section should be placed in the function section of the article. I thought that the rest of this entire section was really great. I think possibly going into a bit more depth could be helpful to the layperson.

1. Well Written

This article is very well organized and does help break up the vast amount of information in a comprehensible way. There is a bit of scientific jargon that may be difficult for some people to understand. The links are placed throughout the article in a really helpful way, however. There are a few grammaticle errors that will be easy to correct. I also think that some of the sections are a bit brief and could be divulged into further to elaborate the understanding.

2. Verifiable with no original research

Yes. This was done well.

3. Broad in its coverage

I really enjoyed the application of the structure and function sections in the clinical application section, however, I think a little bit of the information could be altered and elaborated upon. With all of the information available, this can be very daunting and I apppreciated the overview of the important topics related to endomorphins, generally.

4. Neutral

Yes. Well done.

5. Illustrated

There are a couple pictures that really help aid the topic. I liked them all and thought that they were great.

Reference Number 4

Make sure that all of the references follow the same structure/format. I do not think that it is necessary to include the html, for example. This is a secondary source, so that's good. This was used a lot in the clinical applicaiotn section, understandably. However, going through this article I think that there is some more relevant information that could be included. Specifically, the relation to pain control in the body. For instance, I saw something about the expression levels of each endomorphin in immunocytes resulting in the indication of a peripheral mechanism towards regulating inflammatory pain. Furthermore, possible side effects of opioids, in relation to endomorphins, could be talked about a bit more in the clinical applicaiton section with this source. Overall, I think that this was an excellent source and was used well to provide a vast amount of information.

I really hope that these suggestions help. I can tell that you all worked hard on this article and it was overall done very well. I think there are a few things that can be altered, however, all-in-all it was a great article. 8690mellind (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review 3 Response

Hello 8690mellind! Thank you for your input on our article! We felt that the amino acid sequence in the introduction was necessary because the sequences constitute the identity of endomorphins-1 and -2. By listing the sequences we establish that endomorphins are short proteins, which gives the reader a general idea of the molecules. In the case of a larger peptide, the sequence may not be too long for the introduction. However, as tetrapeptides the sequences for the endomorphins do not pose as a problem. Ultimately there is no more specific way to describe these molecules than my listing the sequence. We corrected the grammatical errors that you mentioned. The depth of the content described in the article was limited 1) due to desire keep the focus on endomorphins and 2) due to the fact that endomorphins are still being investigated, and many of their mechanisms of action have yet to be characterized. The main importance of the amino acid structure is the ability to bind mu opioid receptors which we mentioned in the structure section. We took your advice in breaking down the second sentence of the function section. At the beginning of the function section, we added an explanation of the processes discussed later in the section. We did move the last sentence of the first paragraph of the clinical application section to the function section. Further depth in the clinical application section is difficult without using material of primary literature. All references do have the same format and we would like to have the html in the references to facilitate navigation of the references. Also in the clinical application section, the functions of endomorphins are highly circumstantial in the body and problematic to discuss in detail. Detailed discussion of such material is out of the scope of a Wikipedia article.

Secondary Review

Overall, there was some good content. I appreciate that there were a lot of links to other pages and citations were given pretty thoroughly. There are really small details that I am sure can and will be fixed like grammar but other than that it seems pretty good. A suggestion could be for the Structures section is going into a little more detail in regards to how the structure affects the function of endomorphins or how the structure helps in endomorphin activity. What part of the structure interacts with receptors or other molecules? NirmPatel (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Review

Overall this article has some very strong points and some weak points. Some of the strong points are the use of the sources and great illustrations. I would suggest fixing this article by explaining the information and making the article flow better. This article seems to just list information and not explain it at all. It also goes on tangents and explains other things than endomorphines such as how neurotransmitters work, which is covered by the links. To fix this, focusing on just Endomorphines can greatly improve this article. This article also has little information for each section especially the structure section. More information would be very helpful. Other than these minor problems, the article was well organized, neutral and had broad coverage. Collinryan (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review

1. Well Written
Even though there are different sections/headings that allow the article to be organized, there are a few places where I believe transition words or phrases can be used so the reader can understand the article more clearly. In addition to that, the explanation of some of the more complex vocabulary might allow a reader that isn’t knowledge about the topic, to understand it more and be able to follow the path easier. These changes may go hand in hand. Also, there are a lot of vocab words that have links to other pages that have more information which is great, however, it gets somewhat cluttered and is difficult to understand what is really being said. For example, the Opioids and receptors section had a lot of information covered in it, however, half of the section is blue due to the more complex terms being used, which may be necessary, but may be a bit distracting/ difficult to follow. Also, the some sentences seem to be their own thoughts and don’t flow from one sentence to another. There was also a spelling mistake in the Opioids and Receptors section. In the last sentence of the second paragraph, the word bee should have an “n” at the end I believe. Finally, I believe that the first paragraph of clinical application could be expanded on. For example, explain what the inhibition of release of substance P does or what the increase of release of serotonin does compared to what would happen if endomorphins were not as present. However, the article in itself is pretty well written.
2. Verifiable with no original research- Yes. There are a lot of references listed which is great due to the amount of information that was attained to create the article. There is no original research done. Good job!
3. Broad in its coverage
Yes. The fact that there are so many different areas that are covered is fantastic however, it was still in focus on the main topic of endomorphins. This, personally, is the strongest part of this article! If a couple of changes are made to help the flow of the article, you should get a really good grade on this!
4. Neutral Yes. There is no bias that can be seen in the writing of this article which is great.
6. Illustrated
Yes. The pictures in the structure section are really helpful for a reader! However, I believe that another image in the clinical application section could be very helpful.
Reference Number 8
This article is indeed a secondary source. This was a very large article with a lot of useful information. To be honest, a lot of the information that is seen in your article is also seen in the other articles, so just make sure you are siting everything properly. I don’t want you to get docked for plagiarism at all. It also is a great example of good flow throughout the article. It uses transitions and is somewhat easier to understand. If you have any questions on what I mean by some of my comments, please let me know! I will be happy to help! Good luck with the rest of the semester. KashTalwar415 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review 4 Response

Hello KashTalwar415! Thank you for your input! We decided not to add transition words or phrases because we feel they are not appropriate for the Wikipedia style of writing, that focuses on factual material. Explanatory phrases were added throughout the material. The large number of links help us to keep focus on our topic rather than describing peripheral topics. We changed the grammatical errors in the article. While we did add some material to the clinical application section, certain topics were not discussed, again to maintain focus on endomorphins. We felt that the image of the binding site of the mu opioid receptor was a appropriate for the clinical application section. Addition of a fourth image may appear cluttered. Everything was cited properly, we checked this. Our percent similarity was minimal.