Contents

Wikipedia:Peer review/Antibody/archive1

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis[edit]

Not a thorough review, but a few things that stood out:

• Briefly, the organization seems a bit off - why describe the different types of mammalian antibodies before describing antibody structure? This creates the awkward necessity of saying that the classifications are based on the constant domain of the heavy chain, without having explained what that is.
• Cosmetically, it'd be nicer for the lead image to be in color.
• Wikilinking seems inconsistent - you should link glycoprotein again in the structure section, and currently there's no link to amino acid at first mention, but the word 'diversity' is linked.
• The last sentence in the VDJ section is a fragment, or missing a verb, or something - it just doesn't read right.
• I think the class switching section should be expanded; currently it's so 'summarized' that it doesn't say much anymore.
• Similarly, expand on the avidity vs affinity thing. Start by linking affinity to the correct page instead of a disambig. The phrase 'true affinity' is unclear; I'm not an immunologist, but as described, 'avidity' sounds like what I'd call the binding affinity.
• Put the image gallery before the references? Nobody's going to see it down there. Opabinia regalis 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas, thanks Opabinia! I (or we) will work out these points. A quick question: I think that the lead image is useful because it describes the "lock and key" concept in the adjacent text, did you think so too? If you think that the image is helpful I could probably colorize it, if not we could just change it out for a different antibody image.--DO11.10 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I? I've created this, feel free to use it if you like. It's colorized and a vector image, as preferred for diagrams. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Opabinia! In response to your first, I think the sections were originally organized so that structure came before isotype like you suggested, but the whole heavy chain thing didn't make sense without first knowing what they represented (i.e. different types of antibody have different heavy chains). So what I did here was to leave the order the same but just remove the one sentence going into heavy chains from the isotype section (this actually seems to simplify this section a little), which removes the redundancy between these two sections AND then leaves all reference to heavy chains coming under the structure section. Do you reckon this helps or just makes things worse?? Ciar 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. New color figure looks great Fvasconcellos!Ciar 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top figure looks great! I'm not sure about removing the heavy-chain reference from the isotypes section though; that's a pretty important fact about their classification. Opabinia regalis 01:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, but the reference to heavy chains being related to classification is still there in the heavy chain section (second sentence) - it was repeated in the article, so I only deleted the first mention! Ciar 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos[edit]

After a quick read, a few comments:

• As a layman, my main concern with this article is its prose. There are several little things that stand out to me and could be improved to make the prose more compelling, such as:
  • An overuse of parentheses—IMHO you can shake things up a little, use some em dashes and semicolons!
  • A few strange sentences, such as "…the base of the Y is important for binding to specific receptors (such as Fc receptors) to allow activation [of] immune responses appropriate for a given antigen."
  • There could be better use of punctuation throughout;
• There's some weird wikilinking, and better use could be made of piped links, e.g. jawed fish could go directly to Gnathostomata, bony/cartilaginous fish to Osteichthyes/Chondrichthyes etc. Also, some links to important jargon (such as monomer, dimer et al., immunoglobulin domain are present, but not at the first instance of the word they link to;
• And I'd like to see a bit more on monoclonal antibodies, given the growing prominence of their role in therapy.

:) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fvasconcellos, those are really good suggestions. I think that some of the wikilinking issues came from a series of section reorganizations. Off to add some spicy dashes and semicolons :). Thanks again--DO11.10 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; looking good so far, BTW. One more thing, which I've just noticed: all web references (i.e. not to periodicals or books) should have the date of last retrieval, and as much information about the source as possible, such as author, publisher, date of creation etc. if available. The {{cite web}} template is my personal choice for this, but some editors dislike it; plain formatting (MLA style/APA style/insert your favorite here) is OK as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]