Difference between revisions of "Talk:2009 Group Project 2"
|Line 6:||Line 6:|
==Constructive Criticism of Peers==
==Constructive Criticism of Peers==
--[[User:Z3218657|Sally Clarke]] 09:42, 1 October 2009 (EST) Nice work kids!
--[[User:Z3218657|Sally Clarke]] 09:42, 1 October 2009 (EST) Nice work kids!
Revision as of 14:10, 1 October 2009
Constructive Criticism of Peers
--Sando Rashed 13:10, 1 October 2009 (EST)hello, well done with the page, it looks great and the information seems like it has been well thought, there is a good use of diagrams which makes the page much more appealing to the reader, a glossary at the bottom of the wiki would be of a great help for people that do not understand some of the scientific jargon that is used, the section of current research is very plain it only has information you might want to add some photos around it as it will make the page more appealing, under the history sub title you might want to put it in a table to make the the layout more consistent and it will make the page easier to read, on the page under timeline developement use havevnt actually spooken about stages 1-7, use might want to throw in a brief outline on what happenes here just to make the assignment a bit more fluent instead of jumping straight to stage 7,
--Sally Clarke 09:42, 1 October 2009 (EST) Nice work kids!
- The page is nice and short it is great!!!! Keeps you interested in the page
- I like the timeline section but the staging section is quite large and looks a little unformatted (the big table has a lot of gaps and takes up a lot of the page)
- I think there needs to be a bit more information in the last two sections, Genetics and Current Research
- Maybe a few more images too but understandable if you can't get it
- linking to articles and references might help you throughout the project as it allows readers a break from the page and also help reduce copyright infringements as i don't think you have properly done this But nice work guys!!!!
--Bronwyn Lewis-Jones 08:31, 1 October 2009 (EST) Congratulations on a great assignment Group 2. I loved the use of relevant pictures throughout - they were very effective in maintaining the readers' interest. The limited content is also an advantage as it allows the reader to obtain a well rounded (but not too intense) understanding of the fly as an embryological tool. One issue is that the biologic name should appear in italics (Genus species). Also you've mentioned that the fly is important in genetic research, however your section on genetics is quite short and doesn't go into much detail about genetic research concerning the fly. To even out content you could also add more into the current research section. If you can keep this in the same style and format that would be best because the way information is presented in this section is great. I hope you find this helpful. :)
--Jenny Guy 18:14, 30 September 2009 (EST)
- In the timeline, what happens up until stage 8?? there is no mention of stage 1-7. Surely something happens then.
- Some images dont have the copyright indications displayed after the description. Mark asked for this to be put here.
- In genetics, if the Y chromosome does not affect the sex, how is it determined?
- Do any parts of the chromosomes relate to the human chromosomes?
- Is there a link to finding out the genome?
- The main use for the fly is because it "plays a major role in embryological and genetic research". However you've only noted its research for brain abnormalities, traits & vision in the human. How is it used for embryology & genetic research? This is where you havent compared it much to the human and why its even used for understanding the human better.
- There arent many references! 11?
- Are there any abnormalities in the Fly?
--Gabriela Pinget 22:28, 29 September 2009 (EST) Hi fly group, I think your page is fab. I like the pictures and the clarity of your text. The links at the bottom are great but I think that by distributing the links throughout your page in the sections to which they pertain would make them more useful than having them as a pile at the bottom of the page.
The rest of my constructive criticism goes according to section:
- Nice picture
- the lay out is a bit off- why is the information crammed at the side and then added at the bottom? I think it would look better if it was all put at the bottom of the picture
- stages of development:
- awesome section. Very neat and tidy. Easy to read with the inclusion of the table and very clear.
-History of embryology use:
- I like the idea of simple points. Keeps it succinct and easy to read. This may also work against you in that dot points are harder to engage with that full text
- just a few grammatical errors (I'm sure that in 1910, 'it' became known as the fly room, not 't'; also 1930s should not have an apostrophe)- nothing editing can't fix
- really easy to read due to its conversational language. This makes the genetics section quite engaging
- maybe a little more could be done to compare the genetics of a fly to that of a human or just added a little more on genetic information altogether. Or at least where to find out more
- I very much liked the use of headings to outline various areas of current research
- maybe some colour could be added through the use of pictures or at least the internet could be taken advantages through the use of links to current research
--Sadaf Masood 12:18, 30 September 2009 (EST)Hey Group 2! Congrats on your project guys...happy to see lovely pictures and well informative stages of developmensta nd current research. Ill list them down:
1. Needs a Glossary so few hardcore scientific jargon makes sense :)
2. Stages of development in table with images is just amazing!
3. How about comparing Fly and Human genetics?
4. Advantages and Disadvantages of model use?
5. And how is Fly important for embryology purposes?
Rest if awesome guys, and the images are just beautiful. Once again congrats on an excellent effort for the research project and Bets of Luck to everyone :)
--Joe Nassif 17:20, 29 September 2009 (EST)
- This wiki webpage was extremely well formatted. The information could have been more truncated, certainly in the first section following the introduction, where sentences were long and could have been joined together regarding the specific topic. The section outlining what would be discussed should have not included as there is a contents page included at the very start of the project. Overall the project specfically cover most issues regarded by the outcomes and few minor edit are required to enhance the page.
- The illustrations were great, however I would have regarded that for the information should refer more to the figure or picture in order for the readers to understand the topic more briefly. The stages in the table were great and informative ,however the illustration for each phase didn’t exaclty refer and reveal it particular stage it seemed insignificant.
- The information on history was well researched and identified very well outline the dates and historical steps inorder with the chronological times, additional information regard the history and why this was used should have been included with specfic reference to models one in particular, and how this model has sciencfically been used for research purposes.
- The genetics information was informative , additionally illustration regarding the chromosome and genetics development should have related more to the topic. I would recommend including links and website to the genetics of the fly which will provided the reader additional information.
- The current research shows concise information, specfic links was a great idea.
- Great job it was well structured and organized each topic of content appears to be well researched the information is well summarized to it extent, including the relevant information for each section. The use of visual representations of information is good, particularly in the timeline and staging sections.--Joe Nassif 17:20, 29 September 2009 (EST)
--Sumaiya Rahman 15:39, 28 September 2009 (EST) Hey Fly group! Congrats on the assignment, you guys did a great job! The introduction is well written as it gives the readers an overall image of what to expect on the page. The timetable of emryogenesis is good as it breaks up the text, however including labels in the images would help readers better understand the information given. The stages section is fantastic! The use of images in a table makes it very easy to understand. There are a few grammatical errors in the history of model use section which need to be fixed up. For example, “an American geneticist and embryologist, was looking for an inexpensive that could be breed quickly and in limited space and Castle suggested the drosophila”. Also the genetics and current embryology sections seem quite short. Maybe a little bit more content in both these sections will give the readers a better understanding.
--Vishnnu Shanmugam 12:13, 26 September 2009 (EST) Great work fly group. Your assignment looks visually appealing and the information presented is well summarized (still amazed that a fly can fully develop in 22 hours). A real plus point in your assignment is how you've used RELEVANT images to support the text. Now let's get to what matters. Ways to improve the assignment:
- With the timeline of Drosophila Development, try to add keys or labels to the "timetable of embryogenesis" image to distinguish the different developing structures. I't a bit hard to see what the green, red and yellow structures in the image represent.
- Under "history of embryological model use" and "genetics" you might be able to mension Gregor Mendel, his work with flies and the contribution he made to the genetics of all organisms as well as the fly.
- The genetics section needs more information maybe the inclusion of how phenotype changes can be achieved from Monohybrid cross of flies with dominant and recessive alleles. Find out more my google searching "Mendelian inheritance". This can then flow to improve the current research section on "The use of Drosophila as a model for the development of human traits".
- The current reaserch section needs some work on it. The inclusion of visual aid to support the text should help. Investigate on dominant/recessive genetic trees and how they are used in Drosophila to model inherited diseases.
- The assignment needs to be properly referenced as there is no references made in the actual text. see www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/ref_apa.html for help with APA referencing.
- A Glossary would also complement the text.
Overall great job.....some additions will make it excellent!
--Elide Newton 14:26, 26 September 2009 (EST) HELLO GROUP 2: Well concrats on producing a really great assignment! I'm impressed with the staging sections and how well the visual content represents the written. Well my one comment of improvement would have to be on equal content for each section. I feel the last 2 sections ( genetics and current research) are lacking in info. I understand genetics might be difficult to get informations. For the current research section try Pubmed and type in the fly, these articles will be cutting edge. Also if you could include How they are used in current research.. eg are their genes manipulate, cross bred, transgenic etc. ie the process of how they are used ? I really hope this helps!
--Jin Lee 16:56, 26 September 2009 (EST)congratulation group 2. Well done! it's a great assignment! Here is my comments: History section needs to be referenced properly and may be some more images and relevant links as well. Information about genetics and current research are little lacking..try to add some links. I am very impressed with the images in the staging section and the way it links to more information. the assignment needs to be looked after the reference part.
--Begum Sonmez 22:37, 26 September 2009 (EST) Hello Group 2, Congratulations on your page. I found that your page was interesting, and easy to read. No overload. Just wanted to say a few things about the History section:
- The overuse of the word In is unnecessary, and repetitive. A possible alternative would be to replce them with the DATE or the Researchers as sub-headings.
- When mentioning a researcher for the first time, refer to them with their full name whenever possible. This is relevant to the viewer as he or she may make use of the full name (they may want to 'google' the researcher for example). For example, 'Muller' or 'Morgan'.
- I found that some of the findings were expressed generally rather than making direct reference to the Drosophilia embryo. For example, instead of stating that Morgan won a nobel prize 'for his discovery that genes are carried on chromosomes and are the mechanical basis of hereditary', a brief explanation of how Morgan used your chosen animals embryo would be useful. I hope I am making sense.
- A direct link to the researcher's published article would be helpful whenever possible. This allows for quick access for an interested viewer.
For the Genetics section:
- The Genetics section was interesting, however considering the great importance of genetics, more information would widen the knowledge of the reader. It can be improved with information on transgenic Drosophilia, or drosophilia stem cells.
- After mentioning the simplicity of it's genome, you have outlined the use of the embryo to '...trial new gene expressions in its genome.' This is not a major concern for me, though the inclusion of an example would be more informative.
The current research section was very clear, relevant to the topic, interesting, and informative.
The 'Helpful Links' were relevant to the topic, and they were 'Helpful'. In particular, the FlyBase.
Last of all, a direct link to a video showing the development of the musculature or the gut would be interesting to see. But I find that it isn't crucial to have when the information is structured very well. This is more so, for the reason of the presence of a different medium.
Overall, I found that the structure of each section was clear and easy to read and understand. The sentences in each paragraph were flowing very well (in particular, the introduction). The content of the page was highly relevant. Great job Group 2, I'm impressed.
--Emily Wong 11:02, 27 September 2009 (EST) To start off, great work group 2. You've done an awesome job. It is a very concise, well structured and organized page. Each section of content appears to be well researched and referenced properly. The information is well summarized with only the relevant content included. The use of visual representations of information is good, particularly in the timeline and staging sections. Student contribution to the page is fairly evenly distributed. This project could be improved by including some more information on the content needed as it felt to me to be a little to brief.
--Gang Liu 15:40, 27 September 2009 (EST)This a well structured and self-explanatory wikipage. I had a good time reading it throughout. The cocept is easy to follow such as flies are cost effective, easy to replicate and obtain, as well as large quantities. Texts are informative, on top of that, graphics are appropriate, which also makes it interesting to read. There are a number of major subheading have been included such as hitory, timeline, stages, genetics and current embryology.
However, the following points could take into consideration to improve the page.
- Lack of information in section such as history. This section's content was very brief and lack of details and flow. For example, "In 1900, Ectomologist Charles W. Woodworth was the first to breed the Drosophila at Harvard university and suggested to W.E. Castle they could be used in studies of genetics.". This can be improved by adding details of the experiment, as well as the results.
- Lack of scientific base in genetic section. Not enough reference were provided in this section. Also, it is a bit lengthy, which makes it 'dry' and difficult to read.
- Lack of glossary. A list of unfamilier words needs to be provided to assist reader. For example, "mesodermal", "postblastodermal", "mitosis", "monostratified".
- Inapproporiate referencing. For example, "Experiments conducted by Cox et. al. have located a gene in Drosophila...". It is necessary to provide proper format for reference. Instead it can be said, "Experiments conducted by Cox who, XX, YY, from University of Q (reference) have located a gene in Drosophila...".
- Lack of imformation in current research section. Needs to provide more graphics.
- Inconsistency of project.
Last words. I am impressed by the page until stages of fly development. However, i think it will be better, if the last few sections were consistent with the beginning.
--Joanne Raffel 15:44, 29 September 2009 (EST) This page was very well formatted. I thought some of your information could have been more condensed, especially in the initial section, where many of the sentences could have been reduced and linked together. I thought it was completely irrelevent to outline what you will be discussing and I thought it undermined the quality of the rest of the page. The pictures were appealing, however I thought that for the information to flow better, especially in the timeline section, the image should be after the text rather than before it. The stages were especially well formatted in the table however the image for each stage seemed insignificant, compared to the rest of the text in the table, also I thought it was a bit strange to write in the heading of the image column that you can get more information by clicking it. I would recommend either just having the image as a link to the information or including the information in the table. The history section was well researched and informative with the chronological dates, however I would recommend more information for the initial dates. The genetics section was good but the pictures seemed to overshadow the information and I thought the last couple of words of the last sentence was irrelevent. (i.e. studied here). I would recommend including more information and also including links to any research related to genetics of the fly. The current research sections was clear and consise, I know that its hard to find related pictures to these topics but I would recommend it. The links were a good idea however I would have prefered it amongst that text that it was related too. Overall job well done.
--Angama Yaquobi 19:03, 30 September 2009 (EST) Congrats all the team members for a great team work, the page looks very informative and interesting.
- Great timeline section, use of subheadings for the 3 parts of gut makes it very easy to read and understand the content
- The extra bit of information by clicking the pictures in stage development was very useful and aids in understanding the information into more depth. The images used are just awesome!!
- In the section of history, in the 3rd dot point there is a typo "top floor of the Schermerhorn Hall and t". Other than that history section is very informative and can look much better if there is more info added to the section.
- For the genetics section, i would recommend more research.
- As the name suggests the 'Helpful Links" are actually helpful so well done guys.
Overall, the project looks great and gudluck everyone. cheers :)
--Mark Hill 01:42, 8 September 2009 (EST) New comments should go to the top of the page, much easier to read. Like the Rabbit group, your project lacks visual interest. Where are the images of development? You want people to find this project interesting. There is more to researching this topic than simply what you can find on Wikipedia.
Hallo group 2
Being that I have no idea who you all are, let me introduce myself, I am Mitchell.
As for our little topic, what does everyone think about what we should choose?
Personally, I think Guinea Pig and Rat will obviously have the most information available, but obviously everyone is thinking the same, so it might not be available. The others should be interesting, but it would be challenging to find much information on them.
Helpful links: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Otheremb/Fly.htm
I have also found that the 'Biology' 3rd edition by Knox textbook is fairly amazing, at least for the stages. Could be good for some inspiration??
Juls - Timeline of Development - how long
Mitchell - Staging - are there species specific staging, what occurs when
Carly - History of Model Use - when was it first used, what embryology research
Tom - Genetics - chromosome number, sequencing
Group Effort - Current Embryology Research - research papers and findings
Fly pushing: the theory and practice of Drosophila genetics, Part 7 By Ralph J. Greenspan
The Drosophila melanogaster fly has four pairs of chromosomes: the X/Y sex cells and the autosomes 2, 3 and 4. The fourth chromosome is so small that it is usually overlooked. The comparison of the insignificant 4th chromosome to the other three pairs are shown in the image to the right.
The size of the Drosophila genome is about 165 million pairs and estimated to contain about 14000 genes. In comparison, humans have 3.4 billion base pairs with about 22500 gene sequences and yeast has about 5800 genes in 13.5 million base pairs. More than 60% of the genome appears to be functional non-protein-coding DNA involved in gene expression control.
Also a good link to a variety of info: http://ceolas.org/VL/fly/index.html
For Carly http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10731135?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
Current medical research
Of Flies and Man: Drosophila as a Model for Human Complex Traits Trudy F. C. Mackay and Robert R. H. Anholt http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.7.080505.115758 PMID: 16756480
possible pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EyeColors.jpg
Hey guys, Everything you have needs to be on the page by the end of session break because we need to focus on presentation and current research in the last two weeks.