Talk:Type 2 inflammation
Latest comment: 1 month ago by PsyEntsProf in topic needs images?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stress and Type 2 Inflammation edit
I plan to add text with a description of the role of chronic stress in the development and persistence of type 2 inflammation. There are multiple scientific review papers on the relationship between chronic stress and immune function, including the inflammatory response known as type 2 inflammation, and I will cite these in any edits I make. I'm still building my bibliography now. Hit me up if you have any concerns about this plan, and see you out there in Wikispace! PsyEntsProf (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
needs images? edit
also wondering if acquiring some illustrations of immune system would enhance this article's utility. --PsyEntsProf (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Specifically, what sorts of images do you think would belong here?
- Going section by section,
- Lead has no viable images
- § Molecular biology seemingly has no viable images, and wikilinks to articles where images may be more viable
- § Dysregulation in human diseases has no viable images
- § Pharmacological targets has no viable images
- MOS:IMAGES are not required, and so unless they do add value they shouldn't be added.
- Kimen8 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for your reply. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by viable? I was imagining a general illustration of a eukaryotic cell engaging in an immune response. How do I assess viability? --PsyEntsProf (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I just meant viable as in I can't think of anything that's not clip-art that would convey more information than there is in the prose. (I mention the other wikilinked articles because those may be better places to go into detail about how particular cell types do their thing, and thus also maybe a better place for an image.) That's really just the standard: does it convey something beyond what the words do, and in a way that is better as an image and not as words. There's no harm in putting something you think is good in, because if it isn't, it can be removed just as easy. Kimen8 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. I am still looking around for articles and even then, need to consider what we can use that is public domain. I appreciate the link to the MOS and will be looking more closely at it before deciding to proceed. Thanks again for your help!--PsyEntsProf (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I just meant viable as in I can't think of anything that's not clip-art that would convey more information than there is in the prose. (I mention the other wikilinked articles because those may be better places to go into detail about how particular cell types do their thing, and thus also maybe a better place for an image.) That's really just the standard: does it convey something beyond what the words do, and in a way that is better as an image and not as words. There's no harm in putting something you think is good in, because if it isn't, it can be removed just as easy. Kimen8 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for your reply. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by viable? I was imagining a general illustration of a eukaryotic cell engaging in an immune response. How do I assess viability? --PsyEntsProf (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)