User talk:Hakkinen2013

Welcome

I hope you get in and off the wait list. =) I'm your online ambassador. Since you're interested in medical stuff, check out the discussion at WT:MED. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also those quotes on your user page are unnecessary. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you Biosthmors!Thanks for the link! I wish I had more time, but with work at the Wash U. and this being my first semester back in classes in two years I have had sorta a slow start to getting back in the swing of things.

I will say that I am looking forward to this Wikipedia project for class and always have been curious about the many ways to utilize wikipedia. To say the least I am in a state of awe at this moment with it.

With all the time constraints in my current life I am sure that I will be asking you many questions and for feedback about my noobish early edits/additions.

I try to make very dry jokes at every opportunity hence the strangeness that is my current self page. "Don't be surprised if you see more."

-Hakkinen2013 11:30 on 12313

Nice to meet you too! You're welcome. I'm glad you're looking forward to editing! Please feel free to ask me for help anytime at my talk page. The help desk and Teahouse are also available for you. Just type "WP:" in front of help desk or teahouse to get to either of those two places in the Wikipedia search bar. Sounds good! =) Ah, and also see WP:CHEAT for how to sign talk pages. There's a way to do it with one click too, right above the edit summary box when you click edit. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 3 copy editing

The following are some of my thoughts and suggestions as your copy editrix:

Something I didn't want to go ahead and delete without consulting you: Do you need to specify "in vitro cells" in the last sentence of the Signaling section, or is that a bit redundant?

Also, I reworded the sentence about Adhesion GPCR naming (sentence #2 in "Ligand" section) and wanted to run it by you so you could decide if you want to change it: "Adhesion GPCRs are named for the adhesion-like domains, such as EGF, located on their N-terminus."

Additionally, is "orphaned" the preferred terminology for describing the status of the Adhesion GPCRs?

Lastly: Be consistent with capitalization! It looks like "Adhesion GPCR" is the preferred style, so be sure to stick with that.

Jnims (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 3

Everything looks good so far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flemingrjf (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 3 copy editing

I noticed in your citing that you have the same reference cited multiple times as many different numbers. In order to have one reference per number, use the following format: < ref name=first author's last name> citation <ref/ > and then < ref name=author's last name/ > to cite again. If you want an example of this, I have it in my article edit in my sandbox. Gpruett2 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment 5 Peer Review

This first part will be in regards to the entire article as a whole, and then what you have edited. I didn't want to change anything without your thinking it over first, so most of the major things, I will tell you about. The minor ones I went to go in and fix.

The first thing I noticed was the structure of the article didn't seem to be the best. There is a template about cell signaling pathways that begins with the history/discovery, then the mechanism, then the role, then the human diseases, associated with that structure or pathway, and then the research that is currently being performed on the structure and mechanism. Hopefully this will be a good place to begin. It worked very well for my topic.

Also that list of human adhesion proteins seems like it is sort of in the way and doesn't provide much to the overall article. Maybe putting it towards the end of the article would be good, as a source where people can go and check on one of the many adhesion proteins.

There were many places that I felt citations should be made. I was originally going to go through sentence by sentence where I felt there should be citations, but I feel like you know where they should be made. The entire section regarding cleavage had only a couple citations that I felt were not necessary. I completely redid that paragraph as will become apparent later.

I also moved some citations from the beginning of paragraphs to the end of them, as the one citation was referring to the entire paragraph and not just the first sentence.

For the first paragraph under signaling, you indicate a technique used for the identification of molecules interacting with the GPCR. However, I feel like citing this technique with a paper that used the technique would be beneficial for people to see how it was done.

I added citations towards the ends of the paragraphs about the two adhesion proteins listed in the third and fourth paragraphs. I also have an idea that would dramatically change the structure that I will talk about a little bit further on.

The cleavage section needed a whole overhaul of the language that was used. I felt it was much to confusing and complex for many reasons. I have tried to make it so that a causal viewer can come upon the page and read it with good understanding. If a more advanced person wants knowledge, I feel that that is when they should go to the citations. Also, there were only three citations in this entire section and they all referred to other organisms where the GAIN domain is found. I thought this sentence to be pretty useless and have taken it out, among many other words that I felt were unnecessary. If you don't like the change, feel free and put it back the way it was. I feel that this is more of the style that Wikipedia is going after, however. I didn't want to go in and change everything about the article, but I wanted to provide this as an example for how it should be done I feel. The page is yours, however, so feel free to make the changes you feel should be made. I am just providing that as an example.

The section on the immune system I found to be very hard to read. As someone with some background knowledge regarding biology at this level, I still found it very difficult to read through.

The sentence regarding the BAI1 adhesion protein, I redid as well. I thought that by stating what the protein was thought to be involved in and then stating what it actually is involved in was too similar to the review article this came from. It also, at least for me, adds nothing to my knowledge and current understanding about the protein if it is listed about what the protein was thought to have been involved in.

I liked the way the GPCR adhesion protein GPR126 was described in the Neuronal Development section. I liked that it had multiple citations, and the way the information on this page was written was not anywhere similar to the way that it was presented in the articles that cited it. I thought that was very well done.

I didn't like the way that GPR56 was addressed in the entire article. Little pieces of it are found everywhere. A paragraph is devoted to it in the ligand section. There is a sentence about it in the immune system section, a sentence about it in the bone marrow section, and a sentence about it in the bilateral frontoparietal polymicrogyria section. This brings me to a main point that I had regarding the article as a whole. I feel that a much better structure for this article were to describe each GPCR adhesion protein as if it were its own perhaps mini article, where the ligands, signaling, functional roles, and roles in disease were all put into one section that was all under the heading of the GPR56. Perhaps a better method would be to even put most of this information in the GPR56 page of wikipedia. I also noticed with the GPR12 protein, there was more information on the GPCR adhesion protein in this article than there was on the actual GPR12 article itself. It might be hard to figure out where the information should go, especially if you are trying to fix the main article, regarding ahesion GPCRs. I went searching on Pubmed for general review articles about adhesion GPCRs and found several that seemed to be very good places to begin, as a sort of overview of the GPCR adhesion proteins in general. It seemed like many of the articles that you have cited are primary articles, that could be very dense and hard to get through, while coming to a conclusion that yields the same knowledge that one sentence of a review article could provide. Those primary articles also seem to focus in on one mechanism or structure of one GPCR adhesion protein without addressing what you want to be addressing, which is the overall view of GPCR adhesion proteins.

This leads me to another very important point, which is that the way you cited the articles, one on Wikipedia is not simply able to follow the link to a website such as Pubmed. I have included where you can use citations for the Pubmed journal articles Wikipedia template filling tool. I will do a couple for you. When doing this, you need to make sure you press the "Add ref tag" button below. I think it is very important to make them so you are able to follow the link to the article online. I feel that this is very important for someone who is doing some research of their own and have gone to Wikipedia as a starting place. In the past, I have gone to a Wikipedia page to mainly look for articles that were cited at the bottom of the page and not pay heed to the information that was presented at the top.

Here are a few more things about the citations, upon which I clicked on and delved into the article a bit. In the second paragraph of signaling, regarding the GPR133 protein, the wording you used and the wording that was used in the research article is very similar, except where you use "via" they use the word "through."

For the the citation regarding the Lat-1 protein, I felt that the sentence summed up the article very well without directly copying any of their specific word usage. I thought that this was very well done. I thought that the paragraph was a little wordy as well. I feel like you could simply state that the GPS domain and the 7 transmembrane domain are required for the Lat-1 signaling. In addition, I was not convinced after going into the article that the GPS site was necessary as part of an endogenous ligand. But you have probably read it more clearly than I have. In addition, when you link to the GPS, it gives you the Global Positioning System page, and not the GPS you are talking about.

For the citation and the overall entry about the bone marrow GPCR adhesion protein, I felt that taking one sentence from the primary literature on one GPCR adhesion protein and using that as part of a section on the Wikipedia entry of all of the GPCR adhesion proteins may not be the best way to style the article. I also made the sentence more concise.

Flemingrjf (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help us improve the Wikipedia Education Program

Hi Hakkinen2013! As a student editor on Wikipedia, you have a lot of valuable experience about what it's like to edit as a part of a classroom assignment. In order to help other students like you enjoy editing while contributing positively to Wikipedia, it's extremely helpful to hear from real student editors about their challenges, successes, and support needs. Please take a few minutes to answer these questions by clicking below. (Note that the responses are posted to a public wiki page.) Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Sage Ross (WMF), 17:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adhesion-GPCRs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ETL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey there how's your assignment going? I was looking at that and I thought "have been shown to" could be removed (copy-edited out). Also, if this is a tentative report ("possibly interact") then is it worth mentioning? Might we be better off to wait on a secondary source (if it is based on one primary report) lest it is contradicted soon? I'm not knowledgeable on the literature. Just some thoughts! I hope you're doing well. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I see that you put Wikipedia:Peer review/Mammalian target of rapamycin/archive1 up but because I didn't see a link in the second box of the course page section here, I didn't see it to comment before it closed. I'm sorry about that! Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]