MyWiki:Featured article review/Action potential/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 09:57, April 25, 2008.

---

Action potential

Review commentary

User:Filiocht‎, User:Pakaran‎, User:Dpryan‎, User:168...‎, User:Synaptidude‎, User:Diberri‎, User:RedRabbit1983, Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine‎, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology notified.‎

This article has been nominated for Featured article review because it does not fulfill criteria 2(c) of featured article criteria. It referencing system is inconsistent and has only 5 inline citations. Medos2 10:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c) and their formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong retain and immediate close as frivolous. Footnote counting at its worst. This is textbook stuff, and five textbooks are cited; I would expect almost all of this article to be in any of them. I see no inconsistency in citation; does the nom mean something invisible to the reader, like sometimes not using cite templates?

• What would be actionable is the following: Find a claim which has no explicitly indicated source, and which is likely to be challenged. Look in any one of the five textbooks, and if you don't find it trivially using the index, list it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove The citation is sparse and there are three different methods of referencing. No scientific article would get published with a hodge-podge of referencing methods. This was not to do with footnote counting. I admit that there are very few sources but the fault is due to the lack of in-line citations not the lack of sources. — Preceding comment added by Medos2 (talk · contribs) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC); original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors

In short, your problem is not that you disagree with the article, or regard it as unsupported, but that the five footnotes use different styles. Since they source different materials, this is in part unavoidable. You could have fixed that yourself; I've now done it. I hope I have rightly replaced the one that was a broken link. Take it out if you find it unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I DO regard it as unsupported. There are NO footnotes in this article. Footnotes usually appear in books at the end of pages. They offer further information allowing the reader to continue reading if he/she expands on. They are self contained within the article or book etc. The five "footnotes" you are refering to are in-line citations linking to references. They are not the same. You miss the point about my inconsistent referencing. There are 3 sections at the end of the article - General sources, Primary sources and specific citations. The first 2 sections should be included within the in-line citation section to indicate what information has been used from the source. The section in-line citation should also be retitled references.Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• What can be decided as what is likely to be challenged in this type of article? Most people are unaware of action potentials and therefore you cannot verify that claims one way or another. I know from personal study that the content is accurate and you are correct to add that any text book is likely to have this information. I cannot see the logic of the claims as the in-line citations that are in the article reference facts which are as easily challenged as almost any other part of the article(with the possible exception of citation 2 which is more likely to be challenged). Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter of editorial judgment. Put footnotes where you think the textbooks don't cover things, or someone may find the text surprising. But an unnecessary footnote or two is harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks don't cover things? What someone may find surprising is difficult to say. I have no objection to the use of what you refer to as unnecessary "footnotes", in fact the lack of them is the whole problem with the article.Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Prose needs work I think it could stand some re-writing. Even the first sentence: "An action potential is a "spike" of positive and negative ionic discharge". It can't be both positive and negative. That would just cancel out. Later on we learn that it is a dynamic change: "An action potential is a rapid change of the polarity of the voltage from negative to positive and then vice versa" which seems clearer. Similarly, the term "resting potential" is used in the first paragraph of the "Overview" section but is not defined until the next section. Besides which, there shouldn't be an overview section as the lead should be the overview. These are just examples from the first few lines. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree in part with that comment realting to the first sentence. It is very misleading. By saying it's a spike I'm presuming the author intended to refer to the sudden change to positive charge followed by a negative charge. It's a tricky point for me because I know the topic. The sentence is not exactly wrong but I will admitt that it's badly worded. The key point I suppose is to make sure that it's not interpereted as if the change in charges is happening simultaneously. It's just very quick Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep featured pending a more compelling rationale for removal. Without an indication of what statements are likely to be challenged, it's difficult to find referencing problems. An ideal article on this topic, I think, wouldn't contain much that isn't found in a basic neurobiology text, so it's hard to see where challenges would come from. As for reference formatting this is a minor concern and not sufficient grounds for removing status; it does not materially diminish the quality of the work. I do think the article could use some better diagrams but this is not essential. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Tagged, appears abandoned since long ago with no regular editor keeping it up to date. The WP:LEAD is at best a meager summary of the article, and contains a throwaway sentence that typifies some of the text ( This article is primarily concerned with the "typical" action potential of axons). There are parenthetical see also's throughout the text (example: When the membrane of an excitable cell becomes depolarized beyond a threshold, the cell undergoes an action potential (it "fires"), often called a "spike" (see Threshold and initiation); better prose would be to incorporate these links seamlessly into the text. See also needs attention and there's an external link farm. Throwaway sentences provide examples of prose tightening needed (The sequence of events that underlie the action potential have been outlined below:) Serious attention to wikilinking is needed, and there is a lack of inline citations, per 1c. Attention to the difference between a minus sign and a hyphen is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Update, fabulous progress, a bit more to do to bring it over the hump: overwhelming TOC, tighter focus on topic and rationalization of TOC is needed to consolidate sections, External link section consolidation needed, and there is still substantial uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Struck my oppose. The article as of now is under 50KB readable prose, an appropriate size, the TOC is not overwhelming and External links are reasonable. There are still uncited sections, but as the article has now been vetted by editors knowledgeable on the topic, I'm satisified. Congratulations and kudos on the extraordinary effort by all to bring this article to standard: I think we can conclude after all that work that the nomination was neither frivolous nor an exercise in footnote counting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Needs much attention in terms of style and footnoting. Could be resubmitted quickly. Needs the caring hand of someone knowledgeable in neurophysiology. JFW | T@lk 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So go find a neurophysiologist; I'm not one. But if this well-written technical article is delisted for these trivial reasons, FA will have ceased to serve the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Vote struck - some splendid work has been done here, and it can remain FA as far as I'm concerned. Points for further improvement would be the minimising of redundancies with related topics, but this is IMHO not a reason to FARC it in any form. JFW | T@lk 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Lacks inline citations, several formatting problem including WP:DASH issues. The prose needs significant work; it is interrupted by parenthetical comments rather than flowing, for example. There is also an "Overview" section, is it poorly named or an attempt at extending the lead outside the lead section? Jay32183 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Always ignore MOScruft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no such thing as MOScruft, and the FA criteria explicitly states that the relevant style guideline should be followed. The article is poorly written, poorly sourced, and poorly formatted. That is the exact opposite of the intention of FA. Using hyphens when mdashes should be used is actually incorrect punctuation, it's not just a stylistic preference. Jay32183 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • But it's not the difference between good work and our best work; indeed, it's not the difference between a respectable article and a public embarassment, which is what FA all too often draws. Fix the article if you can; but try judging it on content first - [hyphen intentional] to do otherwise is destructive to WP. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:FA?#2 says "It follows the style guidelines". Formatting must be perfect in FAs. However, formatting is not the only problem this article has. It is poorly referenced and poorly written. The article needs a major overall to meet the good article criteria. Your assertions of "MoScruft" and "cruftmongering" are nothing but disruptive. It is not helpful FAC/FAR, Wikipedia, its editors, or yourself. Promoting incorrectly formatted articles as our best work hurts Wikipedia. Jay32183 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
          • • That says following instead of (IIRC) complying with, precisely because they are guidelines. They should not, and need not, be followed to the letter; to do so is misapprehend what they are.
            • FA status does not imply that an article is beyond the reach of improvement; we would have hardly any FAs at all, if that were the standard.
            • Meddling with dashes is much easier than actually reading the prose of an article; that, in turn, is much easier than reading and understanding the content. Please stop wasting our time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
              • It is not a waste of time. FA does not mean cannot be improved, however, it does mean there cannot be any noticeable mistakes. I'm not going to waste my time fixing dashes in a sentence that needs to be rewritten. If the dashes were the only problem I'd fix it myself. Since this article is poorly sourced and poorly written, it requires a major overhaul with expert attention. Pointing out the formatting errors so that anyone who takes on the large task can fix all the noticed problems is a necessary part of FAR/C. Jay32183 (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: As far as my search engine can find, there were two instances of a hyphen being used for emdash, and one case in which it was being used between figures. I have emended these grievous sins against the sacred MOS; Jay could have (and, by the principles of this page, should have) done the same, with much less effort, and actually contributed something, however trivial, to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I had only found one and I was not going to fix it unless the entire article were rewritten since the prose is absolutely terrible, and the hyphen may no longer have been there from the restructuring of the sentence. There's no point in formatting an article that is poorly written. That's the point you seem to be missing. Jay32183 (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remove As I said above, the first sentence is, in a sense, wrong (it can't be both positive and negative at the same time). The second sentence is, in a sense, wrong (sponges are animals and they don't have nerves, so action potentials are not essential to animal life). The third sentence is, in a sense, wrong (Plants have brains? Watch out for that triffid!!!). Need I go on? I'm not convinced that the material (or I should say the way it is presented) accurately represents current knowledge on action potentials. DrKiernan (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• The first sentence is correct. It's very badly worded but it's not wrong. When the word spike is being used it means a rapid influx of positive charge quickly followed by a rapid influx of negative charge. There is nowhere that it says it happens at the same time and I doubt the author intended that to be the case. It is badly worded though that I will not deny. I have responded on this issue before.
• Your example with sponges is wrong. They do use action potentials.(see here) A better example to have picked would have been animals from phylum protazoa as they are unlikely to use action potentials (Although I am not completely sure if that is true.)
• The third sentence is not in any sense wrong. Plants do have action potentials (see here) The article also did not say anything about plants having brains. Please refrain from remarks like such as they add nothing to the debate.
• This article is quite accurate. These accusations are unfounded. It has style problems, referencing problems, wording problems but not accuracy issues. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Then would you list the problems, either here or on the talk page with a link here? It would be the greatest service to fix them yourself, since you understand the material; but a list is the first thing we need, either to fix or defend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to fix it. I have some idea how to go about that but at the moment I haven't got the time. After the 11th of March it is more likely that I'm able to do it, but until then I plain and simply can't. Sorry. There are editors who are capable of fixing it. Try to find those who have done the most edits on the page and it'll be likely they'll be a good help. Use this tool to find them Try to undstand that it is quite tedious looking for accurate journals. What can be read in 5 minutes can often take about one hour to work on. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly we understand that what can be read in 5 minutes can take an hour to work on; this is why so many reviewers avoid reviewing content altogether. But if you can, over time, list problems with style and wording, we may be able to help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's nothing to do with that lack of effort. I've got my disertation to submit, so I have to work on that. Equally while I do understand the topic I would't say Iäve got a particularly good knowledge of it. My area of knowledge is drugs. I try not to add too much as a result. But after the 11th I will make an attempt. I just haven't got the time to compile lists or fix things. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning its accuracy. I'm questioning the way it's written. Note my comments are on the way the material is presented—"in a sense", "the way it is presented", "accurately represents"—you have misread my comments, as shown also by your inability to appreciate a joke. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not misreading you on your statement on accuracy. You were commenting on the information and I responded to each point.

  I'm not convinced that the material (or the way it is presented) accurately represents current knowledge on action potentials.

• You did slightly comment on the presentation I will admit, but your primary argument was on the accuracy of the article. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, it wasn't. I know what I was trying to say. I have amended my comments to improve their presentation. Perhaps you could invest as much time in improving the article's prose as you do in improving mine? DrKiernan (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hold until Medos has time; when he does (and I wish him luck on his thesis), it would help if he would look at FAC first to see the level of writing and sourcing that we actually promote now-a-days. I believe he will emerge with a much higher opinion of this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Plea for patience I'm willing to mollify the critics of this article, but I need time? I'm traveling through the 2nd week of March, but I'll be happy to commit my fullest attention to the article thereafter, if you all can be that patient. Please don't delist it until I've had the chance to improve it! I think you won't be disappointed with what I do with it. :) Willow (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, we'll wait. Marskell (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• With Willow on board, I'm happy to wait. Pls disregard my Remove for the time being, and Willow, pls ping me when it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• A month is long enough, and the article hasn't yet improved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Drat, I know you all are getting impatient but I was away for several weeks, remember? The past two days, I just wanted to bring a few articles to a decent state so that others could look at them while I'm working on this one. I haven't forgotten; I have my materials ready for this one, and I'll start on it tomorrow, I promise. If it's not suitable for FA by next Friday (April 4th), then by all means delist it with my blessing; I agree that it's presently not up to our standards. Willow (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I need a little more time; we're very busy here with wedding preparations, which do not run by a train schedule. Is it OK if I start next week? I'll try first to allay the major concerns by adding inline citations throughout — primum non nocere! ;) But I think the article might yet be improved significantly; I intend to make the article more accessible and, I daresay, more encyclopedic, with everyone's help. If people could be as specific as possible in their criticisms, say, on the Talk page, that would help us immensely in improving the article, don't you all think? :) For example, if you don't like the writing (1c), what aspect of it do you dislike and why? As Bertie Wooster says, "Omit no detail, no matter how small!" ;) Appreciating all your help, Willow (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Willow, we can still wait. Marskell (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that very little additional footnoting is necessary. Stretches of uncontroversial facts (looks like most of the article) really just need a blanket reference to a good textbook. See Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Continue to hold. I agree with the commenters who talk about the inconsistent reference style and the possible need for more in-text citations and/or page-number references, but per the discussion above these concerns are being worked on. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I left some sample edits, inline comments, and External links needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• We've been holding for a full month, and Willow is actively editing other articles now. Based on what I saw yesterday when I worked on the article, I'm concerned about how far from featured status it is, and think it's past to either get moving, or remove. The prose and article organization need significant work, and it remains largely uncited two months into review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, there are insufficient citations to support the text. Although textbooks are perfectly acceptable as sources, is a reader is unsure about part of the text, they shouldn't have to search trough an entire book to verify if that part of the text is true, they need direct citations with page numbers. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Striking improvement due to the heroic efforts of WillowW, another gold star for this star editor. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tim! I'd be happy to hear any suggestions that occur to you, now or later, for improving the article. Good luck and God-speed your real-world efforts, Willow (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If it matters, I've also agreed to help copyedit this article, so maybe keep holding for another little bit? I like Willow's 4 April deadline. – Scartol • Tok 23:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have also agreed to help copy edit this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Irresistible grace, aka, unearned favours? ;) Several of us (Scartol, Awadewit, Geometry guy, and TimVickers) have been working diligently on action potential and I hope that you think it's coming along nicely. :) It's certainly larger and better referenced than it was a week ago. Nonetheless, there are still large sections unreferenced and (if I may say so) poorly written. A difficult choice lies before the jury: whether to do the merciful thing and grant us more time to improve the article, or to do the just thing, condemning the article to the judgment of another WP:FAC. Either way, we'll continue working. Hoping for the former — but not fearful of the latter, Willow (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctant remove. The article is improving slowly, but still not written well-enough, nor adequately (in-line) referenced. However I am confident that Willow and her team will tidy up the article over the next couple of months, bringing it up to standard for a new FA candidacy. Axl (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed to keep. The article has significantly improved. Axl (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hold: While it is not fully there yet. I think the progress of this article is fantastic. It's a true testament to all who have working on it. I'm very close to changing my hold to a keep. Medos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well now, I just can't go and remove something that has received work this very day. So yes, hold until the work stops. It won't be the first time. I just noticed, at a glance, two sections that have literally no material beyond See also links; it still does need work. But all of our best minds seem to be on the job! Marskell (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both! It's very heartening. :) We'll try to be like Scheherazade, delighting you day after day, until you reprieve the poor article. It hath reached me, O auspicious Kings... ;) Willow (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if anyone would like to help out... :) Willow (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the week-long stay of execution we've enjoyed — but I'll be even more grateful for your suggestions (on the Talk page) of how to improve the article, especially from those who voted to delist the article. Thank you, all, and I hope you like what's been done so far! :) Willow (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took a brief glance and quickly spotted MoS errors, Wikilinking needs attention (I noticed potassium, for example), and there are still citation issues, example: Mauro A (1960). "Properties of thin generators pertaining to electrophysiological potentials in volume conductors". J. Neurophysiol. 23: 132–?. Considering that I easily spotted these issues, I didn't spend any length of time reading or looking further. The article is quite long, with 61KB readable prose WP:SIZE; has summary style been effectively used ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more clear. I'm not asking for a review of MoS issues; I agree that the article is not ready for that. (As an aside, you should clarify WP:MOS that boldface equivalent names such as nerve impulse must come in the first sentence, or else not be bold-faced.) Instead, I am asking people to judge the scientific merit and completeness of the article, FA criteria 1(b)-1(d). Is a key concept not covered? Does a section need more thorough referencing? That sort of thing; the MoS stuff will follow once the content has stabilized. Summary style was used, but if anyone feels that some part could and should be condensed, I would be happy to try. As it is, a few subsections have not been filled in, e.g., the pacemaker potentials, so we might yet need to expand those parts. Willow (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, External links are taking over the Table of Contents:

14 External links

14.1 Animations

14.1.1 Voltages and ionic flow

14.1.2 Propagation; saltatory conduction

14.1.3 Resting potential

14.2 Lecture notes

14.3 Plant action potentials

That would be complex as part of the article body TOC, much less External links. There are misused dashes throughout (emdashes are not spaced), and numerous hyphens where minus signs are intended. I suppose the one- and two-sentence sections are still under construction, so I'm concerned the article will end up larger than the current 61KB readable prose size, and summary style should be considered somewhere (perhaps a daughter article on either Mathematical models or Experimental methods). It would be helpful if Notes were specified as a, b, c ... to distinguish from References 1, 2, 3 ... see Gettysburg Address. (I'm sorry if you're not yet ready for this commentary, Willow, but this sort of work can be considered at any time by anyone who has time to work on it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps another update is in order, now that the week is winding down? (1) To the best of my knowledge, I dealt with the MoS problems in dashes/hyphens/minus signs on the morning after Sandy called our attention to them. (2) I subsequently filled in the three 1- to 2-sentence sections with referenced paragraphs. (3) I've just now reduced the subsections within External links to four subsections and no subsubsections; I hope that's OK? I feel that the subsections are useful for reader navigation and I have not found them proscribed in the MoS for Featured Articles. (4) I agree that the article is overly long, and will be looking for ways to cut it once the referencing is finished. (5) I do not agree that the Mathematical and Experimental methods sections are somehow less important and should be stricken, but that's a matter of taste and better discussed on the Talk page. (6) I'm skeptical that a typical reader will be confused between ^[1] and ^{[note 1]} but I'm willing to gamely try to accommodate the desire for alphabetical footnotes. I'm not willing, however, to use the deprecated {{note}} template, which does not produce automatically incremented footnotes. I therefore wrote this extension (with this internationalization file) to the MediaWiki software. My solution produces automatically incremented letter superscripts as requested; however, a much better solution was finished the next day by Steve Sanbeg, which uses the "note 1, note2, etc." format. I adopted Steve's solution for this article, but he and I will be collaborating next week to merge our solutions and give Wikipedians the tools they need to write stellar articles. :) Willow (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I think the time has come for everyone here to vote the article up or down. Is the present article representative of the best of Wikipedia — or not? If not, then spell out what you want fixed. I won't argue with your points here; I just want a worklist and don't want to live under this Damocles sword any longer. I propose that the voting be closed tomorrow night at 00:01 UTC on 20 April (UTC). If any of you choose to remain engaged with the article afterwards, your insights and contributions will always be welcome. Willow (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, fabulous progress by all involved: 370 edits and 35KB additional prose since PMAnderson's "strong retain and immediate close as frivolous" almost two months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Willow, I would ask TimV to vet the science. When he is happy with it, go back and take care of the minor things. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yikes, What happened? What used to be a very clear and concise article about action potentials originally written and organized by Synaptidude is now a strewn-together mess of anything related to electrophysiology of excitable cells. I think the effort to retain the FA status has caused the article to bloat into something somewhat cumbersome and difficult to read. WHile all the additions seem to be well meaning, I would strongly suggest splitting the article up nto smaller articles. Or rather keep it as it is but rename it something like "Physiology of Excitable Cells" and keep the old Action Potential article as a sub-article of this. With everything from mechanism of resting membrane potential, to voltage-clamp methods, to neurotoxins, to ion pumps, to diameters of anions and cations, there is too much material that is not even directly related to the mechanisms underlying an action potential. Plus it is poorly organized and some inaccuracies seem to have been introduced. Nrets 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oof. I don't know the first thing about science, so I can't really judge the applicability of the newly-introduced material, but I do know that WillowW has poured hours and hours and hours of her life into this article, and I've found her edits to be comprehensive and engaging. I don't have an opinion about forking, organization, or inaccuracies (could you be more specific about those?), but I certainly don't feel that the writing is less clear than it was. – Scartol • Tok 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mathematical models and Experimental methods at least could be spun out to daughter articles (and those external links still :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of my edits, or the hours of my life, devoted to the article are irrelevant if I've truly made the article worse, and hopefully I would have the good grace to revert my work if everyone believed the original article to be better.

I agree that the present article is too long, and after making some explanatory images/animations, I'd intended to go back and trim things down. But the compression of information into "brilliant" prose takes time; wasn't it Byron who wrote, "I'd have written you a shorter letter, but I didn't have time?" ;)

Nevertheless I have some hope of winning over Nrets to the new version of the article. What is unfamiliar may often seem strange and ugly until you grow used to it; for example, the first time I heard The Magic Flute, I told my friends, "Ugh, what is that awful music?" ;) but it took only two hearings to make me fall in love. Also, critical commentary from learned scientists are needed to help the article improve; we've had all too little of that hitherto. :( On the other hand, Nrets may come to appreciate the sense and organization of the present article.

Let me lay out my reasoning for the present article, and others can say whether they agree or disagree with that approach, and why. This page is gradually growing longer, so I propose that we move our discussion of article content and organization to the Talk page. It'll be time well-spent if we can agree on an approach and realize it. Shall we? Willow (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I notice that scarcely a word remains of the original version, which may be relevant to some decisions here. I've tried in good faith to answer the appeal to save the article, but a two-week review has become a three-month rescue mission, and I won't be dismayed if people choose to delist it. It seems a little unfair for the present article to sneak into FA-dom on the coattails of a rather, umm, laconic original FAC discussion without having to withstand the rigors of a modern FAC discussion.

• I've had a superficial look at it, and on that basis would be very disappointed if this lost its star. I do hope the remaining objections can be acted on. Tony (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The main hurdle I see here (relative to Marskell's suggestion) is that TimVickers has looked at it, and he's lodged a Remove declaration. (His declaration was insufficient citations, and we still find entire uncited sections.) I just restored the TOC (which had been hidden by restricting the level): WP:WIAFA crit 2b is relevant to FA status, so the TOC shouldn't be hidden with a parameter. I continue to suggest (3rd time) that a lot of content needs to be moved to daughter articles to streamline the article. Perhaps if that is done, TimVickers can be enticed to take another look; I suspect he could bring it over the hump if the article could just be reduced to a less overwhelming TOC and more manageable size. It's too much good work to lose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also, help is needed on filling in missing PMIDs and DOIs; normally I do this on FARs when they're close, but there's a lot to do. If some text is summarized, there will be less, so I'd rather do this when I'm sure the text is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I got through ref number 50 checking on and updating PMIDs; the work isn't as hard as I thought, because a lot of the research used is very old, before PubMed indexing. I'll try to do more later, but from 50 on need PMIDs or DOIs checked. The bigger concern is that there are enormous swatches of uncited text, entire sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate that there are several unreferenced sections, although I hope that you think the sections that are referenced are done so well? I'll try to get to the PMIDs and other sections today, and I daresay that Tim might yet change his vote. The question of daughter articles is best considered on the Talk page; we recently had serendipity on the Mathematical methods section.

There are a few minor cosmetic points that I would appreciate to have clarified, since I can't find them in the MoS guidelines:

1. The limitation on the Table of Contents level was suggested by Awadewit, who used it at the FA Joseph Priestley. Where is the guideline stating that this method is forbidden?
2. I've delved a little into in Help:Section and WP:WIAFA pages and I can't find an MoS guideline that specifies the maximum number of subheadings. There are size suggestions, to be sure, but the current sizes seem OK. It seems strange that the Wikipedia markup language should permit four levels of sectioning, if only two are allowed by MoS. Personally, I don't find three levels of sectioning to be overwhelming; I actually like the organization and ease of navigation.
3. I likewise can't seem to find the MoS guideline that says that – must be replaced by –. At least my eyes have trouble distinguishing the two, but maybe that's because one of them is closed. ;) As an explanation, I prefer to have the en-dashes written out because it helps me in proofreading the article; my eyes also have trouble distinguishing between hyphens and en-dashes. I honestly cannot always see the difference unless they're next to one another, and many other editors mistakenly use hyphens for page-number ranges.
   • WP:MOSDASH, one of MoS's sillier sections; it should not be permitted to interfere with any clear and consistent system of punctuation. WP:IAR is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Again for proofreading, it's easier for me if the pages numbers are not abbreviated, e.g., 249–261, rather than 249–61. Although it's redundant, more typographic errors can be caught with the first approach than with the second. For example, if the pages of an article are 17343–17353, then one might not catch the deletion of a preceding digit thus 1743–53. If the MoS guidelines state that the page numbers must be abbreviated, then I'll happily go along with the consensus, but I would like to know whether there is a choice. Willow (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WillowW, are you unfamiliar with Diberri's script for filling cite journal templates with PMIDs? I've offered to help with this sort of MoS, PMID, and citation grunt and cleanup work several times, to take the load of the trivial work off of you, but I would use the automated tools available to us, and stick to the standardized citation formatting provided by Diberri and used in most bio and medical articles. By using an individual style in the article, you prevent others who want to help from using Diberri's tool, since doing so will result in inconsistent citations. My goal was to convert the citations that were already in the place to the format used by Diberri, to make it easier for other editors to continue adding citations in a consistent style, using the automated tool. Anyway, I can see you have a number of preferences and prefer to go it alone on this (and I certainly understand eyesight issues :-)), so I'll stay out of the way on the little stuff I usually help out with. I remain uncomfortable about the TOC issues (particularly the External links), and the use of the {{TOClimit}} template, which takes the TOC from this to this, obscuring the full article structure. There is not a guideline that forbids this template (as far as I know; it's use in FAs is fairly new, and how it relates to crit 2b is unclear). There is, however, a WP:WIAFA criterion (2b) that we evaluate the TOC in FAs, and if it's hidden, that might not be noticed by reviewers. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,

I'm sorry, I don't have the pleasure of understanding you? I did not know about Diberri's tool, so I'm very grateful for you pointing it out! :) But Diberri's tool doesn't find the PMID for a given reference; rather, it does the reverse, making the reference from a given PMID. I haven't checked lately, but I think the article needs more of the former than the latter; but that can be amended by anyone with enough patience going to the PubMed website. I would appreciate any help on that score, as you and others have done already! :)

Friendly Wikipedians may also find other references at Pubmed that they wish to add, using Diberri's tool and for that I would thank them from the bottom of my heart, as I do everyone who's added references. (You know who you are. ;) The format produced by Diberri's tool is nearly identical to mine; please compare Diberri's example

with my standard format

Aside from the digit on the second page number, the two formats don't seem inconsistent, right? The page-number issue seems readily fixable—once we agree on a standard format—and, anyway, inconsistent formatting of a second page number doesn't worry me too much, although perhaps I should try to empathize with the academic mindset better.

I'm not sure why you think the TOC was invisible? It was always visible for me, just reduced to the top-level headings, just like Joseph Priestley. Here's the version] that you saw; maybe you missed the TOC, or maybe it was a browser issue?

Another plea for help. As anyone may see from the article history, I haven't given up hope or grown faint, and I'm slowly but surely referencing everything with the resources I have available to me. I understand that the topic is strange and foreign, and that many people can't spare time to look for references or help in other ways; I really do! But those few who can contribute, those happy few who will contribute, their work radiates grace. :) Willow (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the TOC issue is not really what is at issue. Per this discussion, it would seem that the TOC should not really be a big issue. What should be a big issue is the organization of the article. If SandyGeorgia has a problem with the organization of the article, we should discuss that. The TOC is a red herring at this point. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As covered in my earlier posts (and echoing Nret's post, that the article may be straying from a tight focus on the main topic, crit. 4 of WP:WIAFA), my concerns were mainly in three areas: External links, Mathmatical models and Experimental methods. I believe two out of three have now been addressed (I haven't checked the article today), but I'm not convinced the issue of the original intent of crit. 2b has been sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WillowW, I'm sorry you didn't have or know about Diberri's tool; it's mentioned at WP:MEDMOS and is widely used for citing most of the med/bio FAs I've been aware of, which tend to follow that format and have consistent citation. I was trying to advance the citations that were already in place to agree with the Diberri tool, to assure that new PMID citations added with Diberri's format would be consistent (see for example TimVickers additions); I'm, sorry the page number conventions is an issue (just trying to help). With Diberri's tool, yes, you have to have the article, but by simply plugging in the PMID, you don't have to manually generate the citation ... have you been doing all that work manually (ouch!) ? If you just put PMIDs inline, I can convert them and format the refs; that's the sort of help I can offer, to lighten your load. This is a frustrating situation: I am not a content expert, I can't cite the article, but I can help with the MoS cleanup, PMIDs, citation formatting, etc., yet although I've offered to do this work, I have not found a way to help that has met with your acceptance. I don't know the topic, so I can't help cite the article, and it's discouraging that other content experts haven't pitched in. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed been doing everything by hand, but don't worry, I think I'm as fast as Diberri's tool. ;) It also takes me less time to write & n d a s h ; than it does to scroll down and pick it out of the menu. It helps that I drink a lot of good coffee. ;)

I'm surprised that you think I've been unaccepting of anyone's contributions; I've never reverted anything, have I? I'll confess to smiling over the replacement of all my –'s to –, but I hope you'll forgive me for that? I think the problem is that you ask me to fix something and I actually do it, which maybe is surprising? For example, you complained about the WP:DASH usage; so when I read that, I fixed it. You asked for letter superscripts, and by serendipity, I had already programmed that a few weeks earlier. You asked for more referencing, and I'm trying to do that, too. It runs deeper; you asked us at WP:MCB to fix this article, so I'm faithfully trying to fulfil that wish as well. Please don't mistake trying to fix problems with being unwilling to accept help. It would be great if people wanted to pitch in. Please believe me, Sandy, that you're cordially invited to help out however you wish to, as is everyone else; we're all in it together. :) Willow (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, Willow :-) I suppose if I mistook anything, it was claims elsewhere that you had to go it alone and no one else would help: just noting that I offered :-) Nice job by all involved  !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This sentence from the start of the second paragraph should be re-phrased: "An action potential is provoked on a patch of membrane when the membrane is depolarized, i.e., when the voltage of the cell's interior relative to the cell's exterior is increased." Axl (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Changing to Neutral. Haven't had time to fully review the new article, but it's clear my original analysis is no longer relevant after the rewrite. Jay32183 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Keeping' for now. It was better than most of what we promote before this process, and it still is. We are not looking for articles beyond the possibility of improvement; there aren't any. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is a few days from the three month mark and massive improvement has been performed by Willow and others. While small quibbles may remain, it's time to close this. Marskell (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - WillowW mentioned Irresistible grace. Well, clearly this article has been saved (nothing sacrilegious intended, of course). --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A deep, heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped with this article, and also to those who wished to save it, even if they weren't able to help as much as they wanted to. There's warmth and strength in knowing you're not alone. After 1,001 edits (well, not quite ;), Scheherazade has been reprieved, and I hope she will delight you all for years to come, a summer-moon in a winter-night. :) Willow (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.