<article_title>Antibody</article_title>
<edit_user>Ciar</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, March 31, 2007 4:59:04 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>reword</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Antibodies are soluble glycoproteins of the immunoglobulin superfamily.&lt;ref name=Rhoades&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The terms antibody and immunoglobulin are often used interchangeably. When attached to the surface of the B cell, the membrane-bound form of the immunoglobulin is sometimes referred to as the B cell receptor (BCR). The BCR, is only found on the surface of B cells and facilitates the activation of these cells (following binding of their specific antigen) and their subsequent differentiation into plasma cells for antibody generation, or memory cells that will remember the foreign antigen during future exposure. In most cases, interaction of the B cell with a T helper cell is necessary to produce full activation of the B cell and, therefore, antibody generation following antigen binding.&lt;ref name=Janeway6/&gt; B cell activation requires the assistance of accessory molecules such as [[CD79. Soluble antibodies are found in the blood and tissue fluids, as well as many secretions. In structure, they are globulins (in the γ-region of protein electrophoresis). They are synthesized and secreted by plasma cells that are derived from the B cells <strong><strike>of the immune system</strike></strong><strong>activated through their BCR</strong>.&lt;ref name=Janeway6&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Membrane-bound immunoglobulins are only found on the surface of B cells and facilitate the activation of these cells following binding of their specific antigen, and their subsequent differentiation into plasma cells for antibody generation, or memory cells that will remember the foreign antigen during future exposure. In most cases, interaction of the B cell with a T helper cell is necessary to produce full activation of the B cell and, therefore, antibody generation following antigen binding.&lt;ref name=Janeway6/&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>DO11.10<turn_user>
<turn_time>Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:00:21 AM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>GA nomination</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>H'mmm, I'm thinking this article is a little bit weak on the refs. I'll try and add some in when I can....anyone else able to help push this up to standard?? Thanks, Ciar 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I'd be happy to help out, let me know if you need anything special. First on my list will be to find some GOOD external links, hopefully to discourage some of the spamming.--DO11.10 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) As far as references go, this article is pretty good, for GA standard. I don't know how much you've done since 31 March, but it seems to be up to scratch. The only thing I am a little concerned about is the use of jargon in this article, however, as most of the jargon is blue-linked, that is OK for GA. The structure is consistent and well ordered. The lead section, while a little complex, does provide a suitable overview for the article. As for stability, I can see there have been a lot of vandalism on this page in the past few hours, but otherwise the page is pretty stable, so I'm happy with that. Obviously, some school somewhere is using Wikipedia as a resource. GA review (see here for criteria)It is reasonably well written.a (prose): b (MoS): It is factually accurate and verifiable.a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage.a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy.a (fair representation): b (all significant views): It is stable.It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): Overall: a Pass/Fail: So, as you can see, I am happy to pass this article to GA. It contains a good amount of well-structured, reliably sourced information that would be useful to many users. If you want to take this article further, I would recommend trying to cut down on the amount of jargon used in the article and using simpler prose, for example "similar" instead of "analogous", to make it easier to understand. Don't go overboard though. Also, the lead section could do with some restructuring, perhaps to find a more suitable place for that second paragraph. I would strongly suggest you get a peer review of this article and try and get as many editors as you can to comment, so as you can see where to go from here, before making any major changes. Otherwise, well done! Smomo 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I'd be happy to help out, let me know if you need anything special. First on my list will be to find some GOOD external links, hopefully to discourage some of the spamming.</turn_text>