Talk:Follicular atresia

Untitled

I am editing this page for a cell biology honors project under the supervision of Dr. Lesly Temesvari (Username: LTEMESV) at Clemson University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpjett (talk • contribs) 04:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 June 2022 and 12 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jay9Z, Aazad55, Smnakamoto, Michelle.nguyen5 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jchhen, Saravo1.

— Assignment last updated by Saravo1 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating Sources

The citations provided in this article come from diverse and reputable resources. Not all citations include links, but the links that are present, work. However, it does seem like most citations are from sources that were published over 10 years ago, so some information might be outdated. There is one sentence under "mechanism" that is missing a citation.

Smnakamoto (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead is a bit confusing as it does not start with how this is a naturally-occurring, non-pathological process. References are also from early 2000-2010 and may be outdated. Missing related disease states, treatments, symptoms, and explanation of the difference types of follicular atresia (Related Disease section needs an update). Needs citation and more studies.

Jay9Z (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. There has been some creative attribution here (perhaps not critical of sources) and a bit of seemingly conflicting data - in one point suggesting that the mode of death of gc's is not clear (accurate) and in another suggesting it is apoptosis to prevent inflammation (which was once dogmatic and assumed, but is questioned).

Also., would note that if the reference was a lecture, best presented as a seminar (not "talk") or oral communication, unpublished so that a reader is aware it is not peer-reviewed. Cheers. 137.110.123.72 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Foundations II 2022 Group 10 Proposed Edits

Clarify in the beginning FA is natural progression during aging in humans; Adding diseases/disorders/treatments associated with FA complications; Defining obliterating and cystic FA; Clarifying/deleting nitrogen oxide effects on FA in rats section (no sources cited; potential source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18817198/); Make language more gender neutral (?); remove/define jargon as needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle.nguyen5 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Group 9 Peer Review

1. Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group clearly describes what follicular atresia is, then goes on to explain how it occurs, the subtypes, and follicle related disorders. Since this topic is very scientific, I liked how there were hyperlinks of some of the technical vocabulary so readers unfamiliar to this topic know where to find more information. Overall, the group does a great job in dividing up the article into key sections. Some improvements I would suggest is to shorten the introduction. It was somewhat overwhelming with all the scientific terms and a simple overview of FA would better fit the introduction. Instead of removing those sentences entirely, I think some of the introduction can be moved into a section titled "Definition" before the "Mechanism" section may help break down the complex reading in the beginning. MicHuynh (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! Our group has shortened the introduction by moving some of the info to a new background section. Also the menopause section was moved into the background section as well. Aazad55 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The article's lead does a comprehensive job of summarizing the process of the follicular atresia and provides enough background detail of the processes and terms associated with the follicular atresia process. It may be beneficial to shift some of the content from the lead to the mechanism section to keep the lead section brief. The content is neutral and there does not seem to be a shift or bias towards any side in the article. Many parts of the article is written in lay language and most scientific terms and defined or explained. There are some areas such as under the morphology section where I had a harder time understanding the content because of the scientific terms. Pictures would be a good addition to this section to help further differentiate the two morphologies. The content added is also relevant to the article and I found the mechanism section to be very useful. Many of the terms and scientific but because of the list of mechanisms, readers without much scientific background can deduce that the process of atresia is complex and involves many cellular components. The sections are also broken down very well and seem appropriate. Pictures may also help readers with visualizing the complexity and level of processes involved with follicular atresia on the cellular level. Overall, the content is very well written, with the additional content appropriately expanding on the related diseases, processes, and topics to help expand the users understanding of Follicular atresia. Jchhen (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, James! We added a couple of pictures to help visualize the complexity of follicular atresia. Aazad55 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

1) The groups edits first start off with an introduction to what follicular atresia is and the introduction gives a good intro and short summary. I noticed in the first paragraph there was not much citations for each piece of info. I feel as though the first of the page was a bit hard to comprehend with the "thus..." and perhaps a easier to understand short sentence may suffice. The end summary sentence does a great job of summarizing the paragraph and was short and concise without compromising quality. In the mechanism part, I think the paragraph part of the 5 ligand receptors could be better organized and maybe utilize smaller bullet points to organize it. The menopause portion is a bit placed randomly and a suggestion would be figuring out how to merge it with related diseases. The group's edits do substantially improve the article and helps to elucidate follicular atresia. -Saravo1 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The article lead has a clear introductory sentence that provides a simple and clear definition for follicular atresia, then goes into more details while also defining terminology that may not be familiar to readers. The lead is not overly detailed, but I do think that it is a bit on the longer side, and it was a bit unclear about when the information is specific to humans and when it applies to mammals in general, so maybe some of the information in the lead section could be moved into the "mechanism" section or separating the different sentences in the lead depending on whether it is talking about humans or other mammals. I think that the group did a fantastic job on the the rest of the article, and I particularly enjoyed reading the "related diseases" section. The wording is very inclusive and all information is appropriately cited. Ayang12 (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, the group explained how FA is a natural occurring during the aging process (menopause) and added a section to discuss the disorders related to FA complications. The group also did a good job adding missing sources to the existing article. I think the group can continue to edit and define the jargon throughout the paper; some of the links to definitions do not exist so it may be helpful to find working hyperlinks. MicHuynh (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the group did an amazing job clarifying that FA is a natural process in mammals, including humans, and happens as a result of age. I though the lead section was very written in lay language and included all the details needed. I do see that the group met their goals by adding related diseases such as menopause, premature ovarian failure, ovarian cancer, etc. I think that this was super helpful in understanding the importance of this process and how it affects mammals, including humans. The group also met their goal of making the wording more gender neutral. I felt that the information the group added was a good balance of including enough information without adding too much details as they linked the wikipedia page if readers wanted to get more details. Jchhen (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the group has achieved its overall goals for improvements and explaining what FA is. Everything in article in on topic and relevant to follicular atresia. The article remains neutral and is not at all biased or convincing. The sections of the article remain pretty equal. There tended to be more info on the related disease, likely because that there was more info on that topic and it is relevant. I think the group can work to elucidate some of the jargon and to better organize the article.-Saravo1 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that the group has definitely achieved its overall goals for improvement. After reading the article, I definitely gain a lot of knowledge about what follicular atresia, how it happens, and possible consequences. The group provided an excellent summary about this topic while still keeping the wording simple and defining any potentially unfamiliar terms. Ayang12 (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3C. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

The use of subheading and citation after each sentence by this group is consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Full phases were written out and abbreviations were put in parentheses when abbreviations were first introduced. The group may want to reconsider the use of source 31 because it has not been peer reviewed. MicHuynh (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Person: D: Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain) Yes the edits do reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion. I think the female humans could possibily be reworded to individuals with ovaries, etc. For example, in ovarian cancer section, it is referenced to humans who have ovaries which I think better avoids the issue of pronouns and referencing people. Overall, the edits do showcase an inclusive language. --Saravo1 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3A. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view because the draft only states the scientific details and processes. The editors are not add their own opinion or mention any topics or views that can be controversial. Services or products are also not mentioned or advertised. Statements are also cited with a reputable reference. The article is not persuading readers to take action or do anything, it is just simply stating the scientific process and mechanism of Follicular atresia. Although this process happens in people with ovaries, the group does not use any language that is biased toward any group and keeps the content neutral. Jchhen (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

3B. Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? The group cites scholarly secondary sources and links all claims appropriately to the sources the came from so that readers can easily access the source of the claims. Some of the articles are not freely available and must be accessed through university accounts, but that is the nature of many journals out there and I think that the team did an excellent job with using many sources to contribute to this article. Ayang12 (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation Review

Jay9Z reviewed #1-9; updated date for citation 2 and changed 8 since it was missing a title. Jay9Z (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

-Aazad55 reviewed citations #10-18; updated the dates for citations 17 and 18 Aazad55 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Smnakamoto reviewed citations #19-27. I did not identify any references from predatory publishers. References 11 and 20 were duplicates; we consolidated all citations in text which now refer to reference 11. References 2 and 23 were duplicates; we consolidated all citations in text which now refer to reference 2. References 24 and 26 were duplicates; we consolidated all citations in text which now refer to reference 24. Smnakamoto (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Michelle.nguyen5 reviewed citations 28-36; updated dates for citations 30-36 Michelle.nguyen5 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)