This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I moved the following formation and description section to the talk page, as it's largely incoherent and I don't feel qualified to clean it properly. Some of the info could be reintegrated into the article.
Robotsintrouble
01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
They can be distinguished by their composition. The amyloid of the plaques is composed of deposits of Aß-peptides (mostly 39 to 42 amino acids in length). The amyloid of the plaques is composed of deposits of Aß-peptides (mostly 39 to 42 amino acids in length). The formation seems to be a result of composition and decomposition processes. The plaques have a porous core with a decreasingly density to the periphery. A genetic background is a false genetic code of the amyloid precursor protein in chromosome 21, or false codes of presenilin 1 and 2 in chromosomes 14 and 1. A genetic risk factor ist the epsilon-4-allel of apolipoprotein E. When the dismantling of the amyloid precursor protein is disturbed, the Aß-peptides deposit in blood vessels or as extracellular plaques. But there are more factors important for the formation, like hormonal, immunological, inflammation processes, disorders of the fat and carbohydrate metabolism.
This article was the subject of an educational assignment. |
The article was very well written but slightly difficult to understand. Someone without an extensive science background may have trouble understanding much of what is said in the article. Based on the complexity of the topic, this might be difficult to resolve, but if possible, offer more description or try to simplify the language. I would also suggest possibly rearranging the subtopics by moving "History" and "Disease" before "Occurrence." Arakdpr ( talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
For the most part the article is well written. However, there are a few grammar mistakes throughout the article (I listed the ones I saw below) that should be corrected. Some of the wording was confusing and someone without a scientific background would have a hard time understanding the concepts you are trying to convey. Try to use simpler words or offer more explanations/definitions to as what the scientific terms you use mean.
The order of topics in this article should be switched around so that “History” and “Disease” should come before “Occurrence”. This might help with the clarity of the article – giving the reader the background information they need to understand the rest of the article.
The pictures used were good because the staining techniques they represent were talked about in the article.
This article I specifically reviewed was, “Staging of Alzheimer-Related Cortical Destruction”, which is a credible source (from pubmed) with the information cited correctly in the article.
Here are the grammar mistakes/clarity issues I found while reviewing the article:
Great job on the article. I especially liked the illustrations you were able to include. I agree with other reviewers and I think the order of the paragraphs should be changed. I also noticed that there are only 7 paragraphs and 10 are required by the rubric. I am not sure if you have already discussed this with our professor. Additionally, in the sentence "From an age of 60 years (10%) to an age of 80 years (60%) the proportion ..." I think there should be sources included directly for the percentages provided. ECBMilwaukee ( talk) 01:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
CK3501 ( talk) 03:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in reviewing our article CK3501. In response to your suggestions, we would like to leave the line "or biological aging" in so that people who are unfamiliar with the term senescence will know what it means without having to click through to that page. Your other suggestions were very helpful and have been accounted for. 3076mengfrp ( talk) 01:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Bzastrow ( talk) 17:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The article was well written but somewhat hard to understand. The paragraph about the formation of the senile plaques would be extremely hard to follow for anyone that does not understand the biochemistry behind the process. I would suggest attempting to make that paragraph more understandable for those without background in science. The organization of your paragraphs is also a bit confusing. The history paragraph seem to come out of no where and although it reads well it feels out of place. It would probably fit better earlier in the article leaving the more science related articles bunched together. Tnasci1313 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Very good article. As some other reviews have mentioned, it is a bit technical. However, due to the nature of the subject I think that's probably to be expected. Also, since the article links out to many different pages, anything that is not understood can be found on another wiki page (which is how wikipedia is supposed to work). I thought the pictures were well chosen. There were only a couple things I wasn't sure about. In the "Occurrence" section, are the first three sentences covered by the citation after the fact about gender differences? If not, some citations for those claims may be welcome. Also, would it maybe make more sense to have the "formation and description" topic before "identification", since most people who come to the page are just going to be looking for a description of the topic? Anyway, I thought the article was very well done. Xc stallion92 ( talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not really find anything wrong with the article that was not already mentioned. The formation of plaques section is definitely very technical. I think that including some descriptions about what is being talked about would be very useful. The first sentence of this section “Concentrated in the synapse of neurons is an Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) which is a type I integral transmembrane protein” is a great example of what you can do to make it easier to read. It is a short article but I think it is very concise and delivers the information well so I wouldn’t stress about adding extra paragraphs just to hit the 10 paragraph limit. The history section can be moved to the top. Overall, this was very well done. Good job on putting in those images. Alphabetfood ( talk) 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is well written and the group did a very good job. This article helped teach me a lot but I suggest trying to add some clarification because I seemed to get lost at times. Not all of it was easily comprehended by me. I also suggest maybe adding more about the research at the end. For example, what exact research has been done and what the results have been. P meyer9614 ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
After reading the article, here are a few suggestions to consider when revising:
Cdrellishak ( talk) 02:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall the article is well written, particularly considering how late you guys decided on a topic. In some cases you used words that while accurate, may make the reading of the article more difficult. I have done some really minor editing to make it more readable. Hopefully I was able to understand your meaning so that I didn't change that with my edits.
Did you really read an article in German or did you find a translation of it? MMBiology ( talk) 18:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the diference between senile plaques and amyloid plaques? Are they the same? This should be explained in the article.-- Miguelferig ( talk) 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a credible study or review that debunked theory that amyloids that cause Alzheimer's disease could be transmissible and infective? I've found one such article that makes this claim (it refers to a primary study): [1] (primary article [2]). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There has been quite some noise in the last few years, and some media attention lately, to the complete lack of efficacy of Alzheimer treatments based on the amyloid plaque hypothesis. The history section should reflect these developments and there should perhaps be another section about the controversy surrounding this. Phiarc ( talk) 13:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I moved the following formation and description section to the talk page, as it's largely incoherent and I don't feel qualified to clean it properly. Some of the info could be reintegrated into the article.
Robotsintrouble
01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
They can be distinguished by their composition. The amyloid of the plaques is composed of deposits of Aß-peptides (mostly 39 to 42 amino acids in length). The amyloid of the plaques is composed of deposits of Aß-peptides (mostly 39 to 42 amino acids in length). The formation seems to be a result of composition and decomposition processes. The plaques have a porous core with a decreasingly density to the periphery. A genetic background is a false genetic code of the amyloid precursor protein in chromosome 21, or false codes of presenilin 1 and 2 in chromosomes 14 and 1. A genetic risk factor ist the epsilon-4-allel of apolipoprotein E. When the dismantling of the amyloid precursor protein is disturbed, the Aß-peptides deposit in blood vessels or as extracellular plaques. But there are more factors important for the formation, like hormonal, immunological, inflammation processes, disorders of the fat and carbohydrate metabolism.
This article was the subject of an educational assignment. |
The article was very well written but slightly difficult to understand. Someone without an extensive science background may have trouble understanding much of what is said in the article. Based on the complexity of the topic, this might be difficult to resolve, but if possible, offer more description or try to simplify the language. I would also suggest possibly rearranging the subtopics by moving "History" and "Disease" before "Occurrence." Arakdpr ( talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
For the most part the article is well written. However, there are a few grammar mistakes throughout the article (I listed the ones I saw below) that should be corrected. Some of the wording was confusing and someone without a scientific background would have a hard time understanding the concepts you are trying to convey. Try to use simpler words or offer more explanations/definitions to as what the scientific terms you use mean.
The order of topics in this article should be switched around so that “History” and “Disease” should come before “Occurrence”. This might help with the clarity of the article – giving the reader the background information they need to understand the rest of the article.
The pictures used were good because the staining techniques they represent were talked about in the article.
This article I specifically reviewed was, “Staging of Alzheimer-Related Cortical Destruction”, which is a credible source (from pubmed) with the information cited correctly in the article.
Here are the grammar mistakes/clarity issues I found while reviewing the article:
Great job on the article. I especially liked the illustrations you were able to include. I agree with other reviewers and I think the order of the paragraphs should be changed. I also noticed that there are only 7 paragraphs and 10 are required by the rubric. I am not sure if you have already discussed this with our professor. Additionally, in the sentence "From an age of 60 years (10%) to an age of 80 years (60%) the proportion ..." I think there should be sources included directly for the percentages provided. ECBMilwaukee ( talk) 01:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
CK3501 ( talk) 03:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your time in reviewing our article CK3501. In response to your suggestions, we would like to leave the line "or biological aging" in so that people who are unfamiliar with the term senescence will know what it means without having to click through to that page. Your other suggestions were very helpful and have been accounted for. 3076mengfrp ( talk) 01:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Bzastrow ( talk) 17:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The article was well written but somewhat hard to understand. The paragraph about the formation of the senile plaques would be extremely hard to follow for anyone that does not understand the biochemistry behind the process. I would suggest attempting to make that paragraph more understandable for those without background in science. The organization of your paragraphs is also a bit confusing. The history paragraph seem to come out of no where and although it reads well it feels out of place. It would probably fit better earlier in the article leaving the more science related articles bunched together. Tnasci1313 ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Very good article. As some other reviews have mentioned, it is a bit technical. However, due to the nature of the subject I think that's probably to be expected. Also, since the article links out to many different pages, anything that is not understood can be found on another wiki page (which is how wikipedia is supposed to work). I thought the pictures were well chosen. There were only a couple things I wasn't sure about. In the "Occurrence" section, are the first three sentences covered by the citation after the fact about gender differences? If not, some citations for those claims may be welcome. Also, would it maybe make more sense to have the "formation and description" topic before "identification", since most people who come to the page are just going to be looking for a description of the topic? Anyway, I thought the article was very well done. Xc stallion92 ( talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not really find anything wrong with the article that was not already mentioned. The formation of plaques section is definitely very technical. I think that including some descriptions about what is being talked about would be very useful. The first sentence of this section “Concentrated in the synapse of neurons is an Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) which is a type I integral transmembrane protein” is a great example of what you can do to make it easier to read. It is a short article but I think it is very concise and delivers the information well so I wouldn’t stress about adding extra paragraphs just to hit the 10 paragraph limit. The history section can be moved to the top. Overall, this was very well done. Good job on putting in those images. Alphabetfood ( talk) 22:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is well written and the group did a very good job. This article helped teach me a lot but I suggest trying to add some clarification because I seemed to get lost at times. Not all of it was easily comprehended by me. I also suggest maybe adding more about the research at the end. For example, what exact research has been done and what the results have been. P meyer9614 ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
After reading the article, here are a few suggestions to consider when revising:
Cdrellishak ( talk) 02:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall the article is well written, particularly considering how late you guys decided on a topic. In some cases you used words that while accurate, may make the reading of the article more difficult. I have done some really minor editing to make it more readable. Hopefully I was able to understand your meaning so that I didn't change that with my edits.
Did you really read an article in German or did you find a translation of it? MMBiology ( talk) 18:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the diference between senile plaques and amyloid plaques? Are they the same? This should be explained in the article.-- Miguelferig ( talk) 20:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a credible study or review that debunked theory that amyloids that cause Alzheimer's disease could be transmissible and infective? I've found one such article that makes this claim (it refers to a primary study): [1] (primary article [2]). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
There has been quite some noise in the last few years, and some media attention lately, to the complete lack of efficacy of Alzheimer treatments based on the amyloid plaque hypothesis. The history section should reflect these developments and there should perhaps be another section about the controversy surrounding this. Phiarc ( talk) 13:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)