Talk:Retinal waves

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal Retinal waves is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Neuroscience Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To begin, I like the work you have done on the article. However there are a few things I would consider revising. First, in Observation of waves in other systems, I would really like more explanation of "developing circuits" when you say "Spontaneous generation and propagation of waves is seen elsewhere in developing circuits." Second, in the discovery part under History, the sentence "As the idea of retinal waves became more known" is a bit awkward. This might just be me being nit-picky but I feel like there could be a more scientific way to say that or discuss what you mean by it becoming "more known". "There is currently still much controversy" in Controversial role in neuronal development could be reworded as well, maybe to something such as "Whether retinal waves play an 'instructive' or a 'permissive' role in the formation of eye-specific projections in the retinogeniculate pathway is still under speculation." Something of the sort. Finally, I think a definition section or a description of retinal waves would be helpful as I am still rather confused as to what they actually do. In addition, pictures would really help. Otherwise, this looks great! Good work! --Mork.olaf (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visuals[edit]

I saw that it's already been recommended on the Talk page, but to reiterate I would recommend adding visuals, and lots of them. Maps or diagrams of where/how these retinal waves propagate, or even a visualization of what happens as a result of them. Perhaps even some voltage/time graphs displaying the activity of these action potentials. I'm not sure of what you guys found in the secondary sources you found, but if there were any visuals included in any of them, I would consider getting permission to use them from the authors. I think that would greatly contribute to the clarity and effectiveness of the article.--Kyhanz (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fluency[edit]

At times your information gets a little choppy. In certain sections you go from one point to the next very abruptly, so the article doesn't flow as well as I think it could. For example, the section of development "Cholinergic wave activity eventually dies out and the release of glutamate in bipolar cells generates waves. [3] Bipolar cells differentiate later than amacrine and ganglion cells. Prior to bipolar cells forming connections, the inner plexiform layer is characterized by synaptic connections of amacrine cells. [2] The change from cholinergic mediation to glutamatergic mediation occurs when bipolar cells make their first synaptic connections with ganglion cells. [3] Glutamate, the neurotransmitter contained in bipolar cells, generates spontaneous activity in ganglion cells. Waves are still present after bipolar cells make synaptic connection with amacrine and ganglion cells. [2]". It might be as simple as removing the second sentence that seems kind of awkwardly placed or moving it. Just something to look at that might help others understand the dense information easier. That's the part of the article I noticed it the most.--Kyhanz (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization[edit]

I would take a look at the organization of the article. This is just a suggestion, and I obviously don't understand the topic as much as you all so it might not make sense to do so, but I would consider moving the "Discovery" section towards the top of the page. It might be beneficial for readers to gain background information before they read about what's known now. Off of that, because "Discovery" is the only subsection under "History", you don't need the "History" heading. If you want to include the word history to describe the section, maybe change the section title to "History and Discovery". Similarly, I'm not sure how entirely relevant the "Observation of waves in other systems" section is, especially at the top of the page. I would either eliminate it and simply insert a sentence or two in the overview about this, or move it towards the end as a sort of concluding remark: "There exist similar spontaneous generating waves in other systems...".--Kyhanz (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

You don't have any sources cited in your introductory or overview section. That might boost the credibility of your article (it says this article needs "additional citations for verification" on the page).--Kyhanz (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]