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

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

---

Immune system[edit]

This is a self-nomination. This article is a summary of the important topics in relation to the immune system. It has numerous daughter articles, but I feel that it can clearly stand on it's own as a useful introduction to the topic, and fulfills the FAC criteria. The article was peer reviewed in November (spawning the daughter spin-off and other useful changes). At just over 30kb (total), I feel that the information is accessible to nearly all knowledge levels, with the daughter articles able to provide substantially more detail.--DO11.10 01:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object: Why is there so much boldface used? (MOS:BOLD discourages it; if necessary, use italics, but there is definitely no need to emphasize words like 'barrier', 'no', 'any') The WP:LEAD is too short. Also, there aren't any external links? Finally, see WP:MSH; avoid repeating the article's title in headings. AZ _t 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the above objections have been fixed: I unbolded almost everything, added a few external links, changed the headings a bit, and the intro has been lengthened (thanks Tim).--DO11.10 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the prose, this fails 1(a) of WP:WIAFA (and unfortunately, needs a lot more work). Place your cursor over underlined text to see my comments:

• Several barriers protect the host from infection; including mechanical, chemical and biological barriers. The waxy cuticle of a leaf, the exoskeleton of an insect, and the skin are examples of the mechanical barriers that are often the first line of defense against infection. The skin is made up of the epidermis, or outer layer, and the dermis; and most infectious agents find the skin to be impenetrable.[3] Coughing and sneezing causes tiny hairs, called cilia, to move in an upward motion mechanically ejecting both living things and other irritants from the respiratory tract. The flushing action of saliva, tears, and urine also mechanically expel pathogens, while mucus secreted by the respiratory and gastrointestinal tract serves to protect the host by trapping microorganisms.[3]
• Microorganisms that successfully breach the surface barriers will encounter the cells and mechanisms of the innate immune system which are present, and ready to be mobilized to defend the host. Innate immune defenses are non-specific, meaning that the innate system recognizes and responds to, pathogens in a generic way.[3] The innate immune system protects the host by establishing humoral, chemical and cellular barriers to infection, but does not confer long-lasting immunity to the host. The innate immune system is the dominant system of host defense in most organisms (see other forms of innate immunity).[4]
• On an unrelated note, Specific or Adaptive immunity – per WP:MSH, "Adaptive" -> "adaptive".
• The cells of the adaptive immune system are a type of leukocyte, called a lymphocyte. B cells and T cells are the major types of lymphocytes, and are derived from pluripotential hemopoietic stem cells in the bone marrow.[7] B cells are involved in the humoral immune response, whereas T cells are involved in cell-mediated immune responses.
• Both B cells and T cells carry customized receptor molecules that allow them to recognize and respond to their specific targets. T cells recognize a “non-self” target, such as a pathogen, only after antigens (small fragments of the pathogen) have been processed and presented in combination with a special type of “self” receptor called a major histocompatibility complex (MHC) marker. There are two major subtypes of T-cells; the killer T cell, and the helper T cell. Killer T cells only recognize antigens coupled to Class I MHC markers, while helper T cells only recognize antigens coupled to Class II MHC markers. This arrangement ensures the target antigen is acted upon by the T-cells that can most efficiently eliminate it. A third and usually only minor subtype are γδ T cells that possess an alternative T cell receptor as opposed to conventional αβ (helper and killer) T cells. (Sorry, these comments are a bit rushed; if any of my comments are unclear just note so) AZ _t 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks for your great suggestions, they made perfect sense to me! Commas and semi-colons are honestly things that just baffle me. I think that we are getting along well fixing some of these issues. If you happen to see anything else? Thanks againDO11.10 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments and questions.

I'm copy-editing this as I go along, but there are some things that should be checked.

:*Is keratin really acidic?

Dunno about the ketatin yet but here is what Janeway 5 says: "Related antimicrobial peptides, the (beta)-defensins, are made by other epithelia, primarily in the skin and respiratory tract" Ref#4

:*Are there multiple antibacterial enzymes in saliva/tears, or is it just lysozyme?

"Lysozyme and phospholipase found in tears, saliva and nasal secretions can breakdown the cell wall of bacteria and destabilize bacterial membranes." and "Fatty acids in sweat inhibit the growth of bacteria" Somehow those got lost??Ref#2

Reworded to change "Enzymes" to "Lysozyme and Phospholipase A"

:*Why would spermidine and zinc repel pathogens?

Most refs I could find juts say that they are "anti-bacterial" also spermine needs to be added, and it may be a "zinc-rich antibacterial polypeptide". For example: "Natural host defenses that prevent prostatitis are the flushing of the prostatic urethra by emptying the bladder, ejaculation, and the presence of a zinc-rich antibacterial polypeptide that has antibacterial effects against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. The prostate has the highest level of zinc concentration of any organ. Healthy men have very high zinc levels, whereas men with CBP have low prostatic zinc levels and normal serum zinc levels. Spermine and spermidine also are natural host defenses in prostatic fluid. These impart the characteristic odor on ejaculate, and their antibacterial activity is directed mainly at gram-positive bacteria.[1]

Changed to zinc and peptides, added refs. TimVickers 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:*Do antibiotics cause yeast infections in the gut?

No, yeast infections in the vagina... my intention here was to illustrate that when commensal bacteria are killed (by antibiotics), other, potentially pathogenic organisms gain an opportunity to infect the host.

Reworded to remove confusion.

:*How do cytokines create a physical barrier against infection?

I think that should be "chemical" barrier, the swelling and other cells called in provide the physical barrier and are induced by the cytokines.

This needs to be clarified.

:*Immunoglobulins and IgG are introduced as terms without defining or linking. :*Immunoglobulins are not a common membrane component of cells. :*Complement has little role in the defence against intracellular pathogens.

True, so do most innate components, I don't know how to include this though.

Reworded, so it isn't implied that it is.

:*How does complement "rids the body of neutralized antigen-antibody complexes"? :*Phagocytosis is still very important for nutrient uptake (transferrin, cholesterol)

True, perhaps "but this role has largely been superseded by its function as a defence mechanism." thoughts?

If phagocytosis is essential for cell survival, it is arguably more important than immune function. I'd recommend just removing this.

:*You need to more clearly define what you men by "natural state" when talking about antigens. :*Infectious disease is still one of the top causes of death worldwide, with about six million people being killed by HIV/TB/malaria every year.

Good change there!!

:*HIV is most common in non-developed countries, but are congenital immunodeficiencies actually more common in developed countries?

Ah, I see... I meant more common than malnutrition as a cause.

TimVickers 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will check out some of the others, and post here. Thanks for all of your help!!--DO11.10 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Not entirely happy with the prose in the lead, which suggests that the whole text needs work.
  • "In immunodeficiency diseases the immune system in less active than normal, resulting in constant and life-threatening infections." Um ... is that "iS"? Should "constant" be toned down to "continual"?

Changed to recurring.

• • "the virus HIV"—Doesn't "V" stand for virus?

Changed to reterovirus

• • "that will provide even more effective protection in future encounters"—Why "will" and "future"? Remove "future".

Sentence re-written

• • "result from the immune system being hyperactive and attacking normal tissues"—Barely grammatical.

I can't do elegance, but I think I've made it simpler. TimVickers 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can it more recast to be elegant? Tony 13:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm holding off on oppose because I see TimVickers (talk · contribs) is on board now, but the article needs work - not sure if it's doable during FAC, but perhaps Tim can help. DO11.10, I hope you've seen DNA, Influenza, Enzyme inhibitor, and Bacteria as examples? Nice start, hope you can get the article to a higher level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

Immune system has been significantly revamped and rewritten by DO11.10 (talk · contribs), TimVickers (talk · contribs), Ciar (talk · contribs) and WillowW (talk · contribs) – warrants a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as co-author. TimVickers 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support new version as co-author. (Special thanks to TimVickers, Ciar and WillowW for their exceedingly valuable contributions to the article.)--DO11.10 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well done guys. I support it of course, but I have some comments. In both the young and the elderly, with immune responses begin to decline at around 50 years of age. - Maybe beginning to decline? In the "Surface barriers" section bold text should not be used to emphasize facts and terms, but rather only for cases described in the manual of style. ...the huge variety of normal cells - Cells not Wiki-linked properly, also remove "huge" for encyclopedic tone. Alphabetize the interwiki links. AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome - the synonym was already mentioned earlier in the article. Out-of-normal amount of multiply wiki-links, someone with AutoWikiBrowser should probably check it. ...in most organisms (see other forms of innate immunity) - that see also is already added in the "For more details on this topic.." at the top of the section. "Immunodeficiencies, autoimmunity and hypersensitivities" should be linked in the beginning of the "Disorders of human immunity" section rather than in its subsections. Any particular reason why the word "eukaryotes" is explained in the lead? We should not explain each word with mouse-overs, that's why we link them. Normally representing 50 to 60% - Change "50" to "50%". Remove all italic font on the "Immunological memory" section also used to emphasize facts and terms. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corrections made. TimVickers 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: within immunobiology, the terms "self" and "non-self" are adaptations of commonly used words that are used in a special technical sense. As such, these terms are jargon and their technical meaning should be introduced explicitly and clearly for a general audience. I do not think that the current approach of equating "non-self molecules" with "antigens" is technically correct. --JWSchmidt 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a better definition. Thank you. TimVickers 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the rewrite is brilliant. Kudos guys! Well done. Samir धर्म 21:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Indeed, beautiful work. It's so nice to see a group come together with such fine results. – ClockworkSoul 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great job! I just did a little bit of copyediting, may do a bit more soon. Any mistakes I can find will probably be too minor to list here, so I'll just fix such errors myself. AZ _t 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support more excellent work from Tim. A few comments -
  • Can the table on adaptive and non-adaptive immunity be inlined with the text? It looks kind of lonely in all that white space.

I don't know how to do this. Gnome help needed!

• • Is the parenthetical anchored link to other forms of innate immunity really necessary, since the main article for that section already goes to innate immune system?

Link deleted

• • "Inflammation is produced by chemical mediators..." - this sentence sounds awkward and I'm not sure why. Maybe because 'produced by a mediator' sounds wrong, or a little weaselly. (Very small nit, I know)

Changed to "produced by cytokines..."

• • "The immune system is a remarkably effective structure" - language a bit too positive? This reads as textbooky to me. Opabinia regalis 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is an remarkably effective structure! TimVickers 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article has vastly improved since I last read it. Definitely FA material now.
  • However, a comment: The article begins "The immune system protects an organism from infection by identifying and then killing pathogens." To me, this is a weak lead-in—it tells us what the immune system does, but not what it is. I certainly realize it's not so simple, but, in the interest of the general readership :), could something like this be worked in?

From the Portuguese WP (already FA there)

O sistema imunitário (também conhecido como sistema imunológico) compreende todos os mecanismos pelos quais um organismo multicelular se defende de invasores internos, como bactérias, vírus ou parasitas.

The immune system comprises all mechanisms through which an organism defends itself against invaders, such as bacteria, viruses or parasites. (Quick adaptation by yours truly)

Thoughts? Fvasconcellos 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to The immune system is a mechanism that protects an organism from infection by identifying and then killing pathogens. TimVickers 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry for the nitpick. Fvasconcellos 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very nice now - congratulations to all on the fast work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wow, I'm being credited for a tiny amount of help I gave on the article, but the wonderful transformation is due to a ton of work by TimVickers, DO11.10 and several others (you know who you are). It looks beautiful...well done :-) It will be great to see this article on the main page!! Ciar 05:32, 6 Jan 2007 (UTC)
• Support A beautifully written, thorough overview of an oceanic topic — and remarkably effective. ;) All of its authors, great and small, can be justly proud of their contributions. Willow 14:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I think it's odd that this article skips over the historical development of our understanding of the immune system - especially since this work led to multiple chemistry, physiology and medicine Nobels; it also fails to mention that immunology is a huge field in contemporary biomedical science. There is a rather weak article on the history of the field here here, this book is much better - Silverstein, A.M. 1989. A History of Immunology. Academic Press; I really think thee details warrant a summary section in the article. I think that the adaptive immunity section could use a brief mention of adaptive immunity during pregnancy wouldn't since it is something the average reader can easily understand.--Peta 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think this article needs to summarise the history of immunology? I'm aware that this would be the first article on a body system to reach featured status, so we have nothing to compare it with. However, I note that while circulatory system has a history section, nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system, muscular system, respiratory system, human skeleton and urinary system do not. The current immune system article is 68kb, so we do have a little space to expand. On balance I think this is an excellent suggestion, but should be implemented in summary style and direct the reader to the more in-depth coverage on the immunology page, especially for modern research. TimVickers 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with TimVickers on the history, it seems a little unnecessary for this article. As a compromise, a link to the history of immunology article could be added to the see also section. As for the adaptive immunity in pregnancy, this is already mentioned in the passive memory section of adaptive immunity in this article. Maybe changing in utero to during pregnancy might make this more obvious. Ciar 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few key things that the article really should cover - I think its a serious oversight that the article doesn't discuss immunology at all; the immune system is a bit different from the other systems since it has an entire field of study devoted to it. On the necessity of a historical overview- I think that the people that made important contributions to understanding of any topic should be mentioned in a FA - I had something like the history section in the protein article in mind. Maybe the "manipulation in medicine" section could be worked into the immunology overview. There are some sections in the current version that could be trimmed, like tumor immunology (oddly specific when other areas are given brief coverage) and disorders of human immunity; there are issues of TOC bloat here too. After going over the article again, the ordering of the sections seems kind of off too, why is physiological regulation the last topic discussed - surely its more important to a basic understanding of the immune system than "other mechanisms of host defence"; tacked on at the end there it seems like a late addition, and it is not one of the better written sections.--Peta 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really true that Immunology is different from Cardiology, neurobiology etc. However, I do think that a short section summarising the early history of this subject and directing the reader to a more detailed article could be useful. However, to discuss how something is regulated, it is necessary to first describe what is being regulated. Therefore the only logical place to describe regulatory mechanisms is at the end of the descriptive section. I see though that physiological regulation does belong before either medial or pathogenic regulation, so I moved the section upwards. TOC bloat fixed by merging the tumor immunology subsections. TimVickers 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address the concerns above, a small section on the history of immunolgy has been added, with several of the "highlights" noted, and the term "in utero" has been changed to "during pregnancy" in the section on Passive memory so that the point becomes more obvious.--DO11.10 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also sentence on immunology as a science added to lead. TimVickers 01:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with two reservations: I just read through to give a light copyedit and was pleased to find it didn't need much. However, usage of the oxford/serial comma is not consistent; I'd suggest changing uses where it is not employed as it seems to be used more often than not (None of these situations to my memory were ambiguous better-one-way-than-the-other). Secondly, the last three or four sections before the see also (this is a marked change from the earlier sections) need some stylistic copyediting. The prose is a bit vague and a bit less than brilliant; however, it requires deeper knowledge of the subject than I possess to clarify. Other than that, superb article. --Keitei (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.