Immcarle1

Feedback on IL-17 Additions

Introductory Paragraph: Not sure if the added paragraph to the introduction is necessary since there isn't information in the introduction about other, similar sub-topics (like role in asthma or therapeutic target). I would recommend narrowing that paragraph down into just the one sentence: "IL-17 has been implicated in the autoimmune disorder psoriasis," maybe with "by creating a self-sustaining feedback loop of inflammation" in the introductory sentences about its induction by IL-23.

I completely revised the introduction, which I had not done anything with prior to this peer review. I combined sentences, reorganized the layout and shortened my paragraph down to one sentence that I included with the function of IL-17. I think this was more appropriate than a whole paragraph. Immcarle1 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Psoriasis 1st Paragraph: The lead-in to the paragraph is great - concise explanation of psoriasis and easy to follow. In the sentence about "studies conducted in mice demonstrate," I would change "negatively impacts" to "decreases" just to make it clearer. The last sentence is a bit confusing because you bring in this tumor promoter that we can assume usually causes lesions, but since it hasn't been mentioned before, I would just include "lesion-inducing" or "lesion-causing" before the name of the tumor promoter.

I agreed with and made these edits! Immcarle1 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph: I'm not sure how necessary this information is for the article. It does a good job discussing the research findings in an understandable manner, but I think it might be a bit too much information for Wikipedia. You've already stated with cited sources that IL-17 and IL-23 propagate inflammation in psoriatic lesions so you don't need these sentences to say it again. You could thin this paragraph down to just the last sentence with some re-wording. I think it would fit well in the 1st paragraph.

Again, good suggestion. After re-reading it I also thought it was a bit dense and overkill. I took your suggestion and shortened it down to be more appropriate for wikipedia (less science jargon). I moved this section up into the first paragraph which I think is a much better place for it! This organization works better because I go from "it's present in lesions" to "its function in lesions". Before my paragraphs jumped around a bit. Immcarle1 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

3rd Paragraph: No suggestions! Very step-by-step.

4th Paragraph: Sentence on ICAM with neutrophil extravasation not needed. Maybe take out the part on neutrophil degranulation and phagocytosis and generalize to "remove" so it reads more like, "attract neutrophils to the site of injury where these cells remove the damaged and inflamed keratinocytes." I think, like the 3rd paragraph, this does a great job of going step-by-step.

Similarly to the last "jargon-y" section, I simplified the sentences down in order to maintain clarity, good idea. Immcarle1 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Other comments: There are some places to add commas so the sentences read better. I would suggest changing your sub-heading title to something like "Role in Psoriasis." It's clear that you understand more than what you've added and I would encourage you to keep removing details that aren't essential to the article like the aforementioned bits about neutrophil extravasation, neutrophil degranulation, etc. Otherwise, great job finding a way to add something relevant and detailed to an already well-developed article! Immcarle10 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I liked the new section header idea so I made that change as well as incorporated some commas in the places where it made the sentence more clear. I think removing the second paragraph made the section more concise and understandable to the readers outside of the cell biology/immunology realm. Immcarle1 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)