User talk:Theowg/Bleb (cell biology)

The author's edits to the Bleb (cell biology) article so far appear to be helpful and productive. There are a few discrepancies in the in-article citations in the sandbox draft when compared to the original article. However, this may be easily fixed when copying the new draft over to the actual article. As of right now, what the author has posted so far seems to be properly cited in the actual article. The author also has noted in their sandbox that they may add more citations to the existing article. In the Miscellaneous Functions subsections, there are many citations missing. If the author has extra time, or can find this information in their existing sources, they might consider citing most of the sentences in this section.

The new sub-sectioning under the Formation section and the Cellular Function section makes the article easier to read, and allows the reader to accurately locate the information they are looking for. The addition of an image of the chemical structure of blebbistatin is also relevant and useful for the reader. In the Artificial Induction sub-section, there should be a citation added for the sentence about poxvirus Vaccinia. Even if the source for the next sentence is the same, it should be re-cited in that sentence (the second to last sentence). The expansion of the Inhibition section adds relevant information on the specific mechanism of how blebbistatin is able to inhibit bleb formation. The author was able to find and add multiple sources that contain this information. All added information appears to be written from a neutral point of view, and is relevant to the topic of blebs in cellular biology. GreenWaterBottle2 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The author's contribution are very effective in improving this article. First, the reformatting and addition of sections are very helpful in creating a more readable article. Second, the new content added is informative and presented in an appropriate tone. Everything is cited appropriately. Using the WikiEd rubric, there are 2 issues that the author could fix. First, there are two sentences written in a way that is confusing: "The integrity of the connection between the actin cortex and the membrane are dependent on how intact the cortex is and how many proteins link the two structures, making the addition of pressure enough to make the membrane bulge out from the rest of the cell." and "Before the bleb is able to expand, pressure must build enough to reach the threshold that allows expansion to overcome the resistance of the plasma membrane to deformation." Second, there are some external links that could be added, such as "polarize" and "chimneying" if articles exist for these terms. Overall, these are really positive contributions, and they effectively communicate this information. ENGW3307 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The edits to Bleb are informative and bring the article to another level. The expansion upon the Formation section is well-researched. Including the artificial induction made the article more well-rounded. I think it was the right move to split the nonapoptotic section into two. It was good that you added more information on the mechanism of the inhibition. References seem fine. I think this article covers the Wiki-Ed rubric pretty well. Overall, you covered all the bases and made a real improvement.

One thing I would mention is to go over and make sure all the sentences are as clear as possible. This is a more technical Wikipedia page topic, so you want to be concise as not to confuse anyone. I am talking more specifically about the first paragraph of "Initiation and Expansion." Also, if you can spruce up the page with more links, I would recommend that as well. Sarah5085 (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC).