Difference between revisions of "Talk:2009 Group Project 4"

From Embryology
Line 469: Line 469:
 
--[[User:Z3224449|Elide Newton]] 17:57, 14 October 2009 (EST)
 
--[[User:Z3224449|Elide Newton]] 17:57, 14 October 2009 (EST)
 
* in looking for images for the gentics section which had copyright laws I noticed the 1st paragraph of the genetics section was the exact copy from wikipedia, so i rephrased the information so it isnt plagarised
 
* in looking for images for the gentics section which had copyright laws I noticed the 1st paragraph of the genetics section was the exact copy from wikipedia, so i rephrased the information so it isnt plagarised
 +
 +
--[[User:Z3252340|Emily Wong]] 19:05, 14 October 2009 (EST)
 +
* Resized the images in the timeline gallery so that they were 175px instead of 100px.  This made the images have more of a presence on the page.

Revision as of 18:05, 14 October 2009

Project Updates

--Antonio Lee 10:57, 2 October 2009 (EST) Hi everyone, I will be working with you during the Lab10 Tutorial and here is the news link and PDF of the manuscript for your group exercise. I encourage you to read the paper before the tutorial. Also, please indicate next to the questions below (using either your initials or student number) which one of the four questions you wish to address.

Group 4 : Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells Created from Fat Cells in Scientific American Published online 8 September 2009 Manuscript (PDF): Feeder-free derivation of induced pluripotent stem cells from adult human adipose stem cells
Question 1. What is the background to the existing problem / disease condition?--Emily Wong 13:41, 8 October 2009 (EST)
Question 2. What approach / method did the research team take to tackle / improve the problem? --Angama Yaquobi 19:27, 7 October 2009 (EST)(Angama Yaquobi)
Question 3. What was the breakthrough / major advancement OR failure / drawback? and why might this be of significance?--Elide Newton 13:43, 8 October 2009 (EST)
Question 4. What are the next steps in moving forward? What are the next or new hurdles to overcome?--Begum Sonmez 12:42, 8 October 2009 (EST)


Constructive Criticism of Coordinator

--Mark Hill 08:07, 8 October 2009 (EST) The following comments are general in nature in no specific order, as it would be inappropriate to suggest specific changes and then assess the final project. Comments will be added during this week and you still have one week before final submission.

  • The project has improved in content and layout from the original submission date.
  • A general comment about images. When you click an image and it opens, the information below the image should have an explanation of what the image shows, a reference (if from a paper) and a link to the original source (if available) as well as copyright information.
  • There are still issues related to page design with large white spaces visible.
  • File:Mice_expressing_GFP.jpg What is the original source of this image? Do you have permission to reuse?
  • File:Transgenicmouse.jpg © 2009 Nikon Instruments Inc. can you reuse?
  • File:Genetics of laboratory rodents.jpg What is this transgenic mouse expression pattern showing?
  • The Theiler images of embryo stages are useful to have, are they really all redrawn? I will be comparing these to the original online versions and they cannot be direct copies without permission.
  • File:Mouse_theiler_stage8.JPG Reichard's menbrane?
  • Glossary still incomplete.
  • Reference could be tidied up.

Constructive Criticism of Peers

--Sally Clarke 09:59, 1 October 2009 (EST)Well Done!

I'm just jumping straight into it..

- I Think the timeline stage is fantastic - the images and information are displayed really well

- the staging information is a little cramped and thrown in together - it doesn't flow very well and the images are all over the shop

- The history section has A LOT of information an images of the scientists, what they did and how they did it - great... i know this would have taken a lot of work but its a bit long. I think maybe making it into a timeline on different pages might help this.

- The headings and sub headings are really good and informative but there is a few formatting errors which is easy to fix

- The genetics sections is really good, nice and concise yet informative

Great assignment guys!

--Sando Rashed 09:12, 1 October 2009 (EST)hey wow lots of information in this page :D, well done with the effort use all put in it looks and sounds goood, few things im not sure if it was my computer but staging of embryonic development there was just a bunch of photos and they were crammed up and overlapping each other making it very hard to read use might want to cut down on the photos in that area or scale them down to make it easier to read. you have a lot of information in your history section its good that you have what they do and their contribution to make it look a bit better you might want to split it up into a 3 way table (name/what they do/how it helped) minimise the reading as i recall dr mark saying to much reading is not something he wants he wants something more appealing to him where he can lay in bed and mark it without falling asleep so a table would be good here. other than that its a great page :D well done hope use all do well!!

--Bronwyn Lewis-Jones 08:53, 1 October 2009 (EST) Congratulations on a great assignment. There are so many good things about this page. I think the biggest (and easiest) improvement to be made is to cut down on the amount of headings for the History and Current Research. The headings used such as "What did they do?" etc are helpful in showing the reader what exactly they are to understand from what is written, however they interrupt the flow and spread out the information so that it seems rather daunting. If you can summarise each section into a few sentences then I think that will not only reduce your contents section to a more useful size but also make the page more reader friendly. If you don't like that idea you could strike a happy medium by either having you "What did they do..." to bold instead of a heading or have (in bold or italics) a very short summary sentence under the name followed by a short few sentences. This would still give the reader an impression of what do get out of each section but would increase the flow inside and between notable researchers etc. Hope you find this helpful. :)


--Julianna Lam 01:31, 1 October 2009 (EST) - the history section is TOO long ! the structure of the history section is good, i liked the whole idea of the sub headings ie ' what did he do?' but i think you guys included way too many people in there. the layout of the history section is not very neat and very inconsistent. you provided pictures of some people but didnt provide pictures of others. there are gaps everywhere and it just looks really messy.

- the stages and timeline parts are really good. the table looks really nice. and i especially like the pictures, very well labelled.



--Jenny Guy 18:46, 30 September 2009 (EST)

Improvements:

  • The history is wayyyy too long. Seriously, there are too many sub sub sub headings. Cut it down and for each scientist make it a paragraph instead of so many dot points. I almost couldnt be bothered reading them all. Definitely not a good way to represent information. Looks as though you gave up on looking for pictures of the scientists. I would too if i had that many of them. Pick the main scientists that caused a breakthrough instead of listing all 1000 of them. Also, it is inconsistent if you did decide to keep the subsubsubsub headings as 'what he did', "what he found" and "what the importance" are generally all targeting the same question.
  • I think you guys are confused as your information is conflicting. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. In your introduction you state they humans and mice have the same number. However in the genetics it states that mice have 20pairs. What is true?
  • There are a few gaps (large random spaces) in the genetics sections. Might want to format this a little.
  • For the current research see the same massive point i mentioned first....
  • Your referencing in the bibliography is inconsistent. Stick with one type of system, e.g. apa OR harvard. Some of the references aren't even referenced properly. You must reference websites.
  • You haven't referenced ANY of you text. How do we know you havent just cut and paste? You need to either reference within the text (e.g. Andrews, E.A. (1895) states .....) or at the end of sentences/paragraphs with (Andrews 1895) or the number used in the bibliography.


--Sadaf Masood 15:43, 30 September 2009 (EST)Hey Group 4! Congrats on your great project guys! I have listed few points that might help:

1. Very well researched History section, lots of people doin lots of work..maybe you can make it a little short as its just a little too much info on them.

2. A bit more proper formatting, lots of gaps after every picture and table, maybe you can get rid of them

3. Timeline is great, just enough info to make sense and needed.

4. 'Why use of mouse is important?' this issue is well discussed. Great work!

5. Impressive hand drawn diagrams, any chances of making them a little larger on the main page? it would look really good!

6. Glossary is also needed...will make our life easier is understanding few words.

Rest is all well guys. The current research Section is awesome, very informative and lots of details. Its a great project guys...Best of Luck!!


--Gabriela Pinget 12:59, 30 September 2009 (EST) Hello! constructive criticism as follows:

- intro is a nice ease in but needs to be edited for grammar

- wow the history section is very well researched. I like that you've included so many contributors but are you sure you need to go into so much detail? It looks a little cluttered and detracts from the overall purpose of the assignment. Think about cutting down on it a little

- I really like the staging of embryonic development section! very engaging and well formatted! well done

-I also liked the timeline of development. I like that there was not too much information at each stage, but just enough to give a clear outline. Maybe a link to find out more would be useful

- genetics section is perfect

- again, the current research section is a little too spread out. The continuous "what did they do..." works well to begin with but after a while gets to be too much

Overall, a really nice looking page


--Joe Nassif 17:59, 29 September 2009 (EST)

Awesome looking wiki page, mouse group 4 an excellent assignment.

It is a really interesting reading and viewing your wiki page the content flow really well when reviewed.

1. The assignment is impressive it outlines the point with the use of sub headings which is always useful in the project as a referencing point.

2. (What did he do?) and (What did they find?) is a great way to state the history as it allows the reader to quickly get the brief information and understand it , also the illustrations throughout the assessment was great it referred to the text really well, which supported the info impressively. The hand drawn images in the (staging) and (timeline) sections were extremely great the detail was impressive.

3. Some ways to improve the assignment: A) There are some unnecessary data throughout the project which are not relevant for example the ‘length of mouse embryo’ , removing this sections can truncate the assignment which would enhance the structure.

B) Current research information on the background of the research finders reveal great info on the development of the model usage, the findings and the relevance to human embryology have been summarized greatly.

C) The referencing need to be fixed in proper format. Visit : www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/ref_apa.html for help with APA referencing

D) a glossary is needed to help the reader understand terms.

Overall a great project. The criteria was covered really well it, stated specfic topic in regards to the mouse and it embryonic developent which group 4 has summarised really well.

--Joe Nassif 17:59, 29 September 2009 (EST)









--Mitchell Mathieson 09:39, 25 September 2009 (EST)Page looks good. I liked how there was heaps of information on the genetics and the current research (however, this was a bit too spread out maybe). There seems to be a lot of gaps in the text, so the formatting could be maybe tightened up. The references maybe should be formatted better, and there is repeated information (tables and text for stages), but I really like how clicking the image goes to another page with more information...that is cool. The drawings are cute as well. Overall very good, I think formatting was the downfall from that, but the information is top notch.

--Jin Lee 16:42, 26 September 2009 (EST) hellow group4~ very impressive assignment guys!well done! I really enjoyed reading your assignment. it was easy to read and the information was relevant. However, I found the formatting of the images and texts were too sqeezy. may be resize the images and line up with the relevant information. Also, I think the reference needs to be looked after as well. Overall, the contents of the assignment is very useful and interesting.

--Vishnnu Shanmugam 20:02, 26 September 2009 (EST)Congratulations mouse group on an excellent assignment. It is a real joy to read. One of the best features of the assignment is how it gets straight to the point with the use of sub headings “What did he do?” & “What did they find?”. Even the images used throughout the text are interesting, especially the fully labeled hand drawn images in the “staging” and “timeline” sections. Some ways to improve the assignment:

-There are some unnecessary graphs in the assignment such as “the average length of mouse embryo”, “number of cells” and “number of somites”. These could perhaps be combined into a single graph. It will also reduce the congested appearance of the assignment as it seems too densely packed with no particular focus.

- In current research section, it is advisable to reduce the number of research and focus on just a few but provide more comprehensive information on the background of the research, the findings and the relevance to human embryology. It currently contains too many different types of research that have described very briefly.

- Edit the "content" section at the top of the page as it's length seems to be getting out of control. It is perhaps better to exclude the sub headings “What did he do?” & “What did they find?” in the contents.

- The referencing in the text need to be completed as there are some sections well referenced and others with no referencing. see www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/ref_apa.html for help with APA referencing

- A Glossary would also complement the text.

Overall a classy project, only some changes necessary

--Gang Liu 16:49, 27 September 2009 (EST)This is one of the better wikipage i have seen so far. It demonstrates not only extended literature research skill, but also an in-depth understanding of the topic. The content of this page has been consistent throughout. In addition, paragraphs are straigtforward and concise, and make the point. Detailed texts with accessory graphics are appropriate in here. In paticular, history section. It describes the model use in terms of details of experiment, and results of experiment. Stages and timeline are very self-explanatory and visually enhanced.

This project can be improved by considering the following points.

  • Lack of glossary list. Need to provide meaning of words such as "polyestrous", "oocyte", "Ectoderm", "endoderm", etc;
  • Reformat stages section. I found this section a bit "busy". Might considering resize the pictures.

Last few words. I have learnt from this page that mouse has the same size genome as the human genome; Mouse genes can be easily manipulated and studied; Mouse a high degree of homogeny with humans. Well done!


--Thomas Dangerfield 14:12, 28 September 2009 (EST)Hey guys! Wow so much info first off! Not entirely sure we need to know about everyone involved in the history, maybe could have collaborated and joined people together or possibly even left certain people out. To me, the whole page is like how mark described, with everything all one great smudge of info with no real formatting or sequence or continuation. It was just kind of like an overload and reading it was a little difficult at some stages. Also corresponding the images in the timeline could have been included in the text.

Also I think your numbering of figures is a little off in the timeline section, with figures 1-4 on the right and then you have figures 4-7 describing stages 12-14. Just seems that there is two figure 4's for two different images.

Love the large amount of research and information, but could just work on your presentation and you'll do fine! Great work guys!


--Sumaiya Rahman 16:56, 28 September 2009 (EST) Hey guys! Overall a very nice assignment with a great deal of information! You can tell you guys did a lot of research. The contents are massive! Maybe you could cut this down and not use so many subheadings such as “what did they do?”, “what did they find?” and only have a subheading for each researcher. The introduction is well written. The history of model use has some really good information. My only criticism in this section is that there are a lot of gaps and blank spaces. You just need to delete all the spaces. The staging section showed a lot of research and effort. Well done!! The only thing is, is it a bit too much? There are a lot of tables and images that it was hard to keep track. Maybe this could be set out differently and made to look less busy. The timeline of development is fantastic and set out really well. It is very easy to understand and the drawings are great! Once again the current research is very spread out with lots of spaces. Also adding a glossary may help the readers in understanding the text. GREAT JOB!

--Carly Mooney 11:49, 29 September 2009 (EST) I think all your material is there but the page layout needs work. Especially the history of the models use.

  • The spacing and images are inconsistent. I liked the history of timeline section information and how it was presented, just the spacing of it all needs to be even.
  • The stages of embryonic development was a little all over the place, and very daunting to look at.
  • A glossary would help.

I think you guys did a really good job and just have to work on presentation.

--Joanne Raffel 16:14, 29 September 2009 (EST) Very impressive page, however it was very long!!! The introduction was very clear and concise. The history section was extremely long and poorly formatted, there were too many pictures with too little information, I would recommend cutting some of the images and just keeping the pictures of those who made a significant impact upon the mouse embryo, I also thought it was unneccessary to write after each subheading, what did he do and their result, I would prefer if it was just one paragraph. Your main heading were overshadowed by the subheadings and the rest of the text. There is a lot of information for the staging section, which is good however it can made it difficult to read, I would recommend having some of the information linked onto a separate page. The picture and format for the timeline section was exceptional however it lacked information, I also thought that it was irrelevent rewriting the timeline after the pictures, I would recommend including it with the picture rather than after it and the graph size made it seem insignificant. The genetics section was very extensive and I thought some of the information was better included with the current research. Similar to the history section, I thought the formatting of the current research section was very unorganised and too spaced out. Overall a very nice page.



--Mark Hill 01:46, 8 September 2009 (EST) Well the content is there now, but what a mess, and I am not just talking about the formatting problem which can be easily fixed, you have no structure to your project, its not a matter of throwing everything at a wall and seeing what sticks. Work together for an integrated coverage. Timeline of development, is not the way to start your page with a huge table of data.

--Mark Hill 08:43, 21 August 2009 (EST) OK guys, time to see some actual content uploaded on both your discussion and project pages.

   * Timeline of Development - how long (Emily)
   * Staging - are there species specific staging, what occurs when (Elide)
   * History of Model Use - when was it first used, what embryology research (Begum)
   * Genetics - chromosome number, sequencing (Angama)
   * Current Embryology Research - research papers and findings (All)



Here is a link for timeline [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XLIarRWHikAC&pg=PT199&lpg=PT199&dq=mouse+embryo+development+timeline&source=bl&ots=fobLBRiacx&sig=cK4cuZah6Ksczs3o8v4NXQqoAyk&hl=en&ei=rGB6SvTHMMmIkAXB_piAAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false ]

link for the mouse brain development timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse_brain_development_timeline

hey guys there is another interesting link about mouse development http://mouseatlas.caltech.edu/index_content.html


Hey Emily. The link below has a timeline that you can check out in your spare time. Begum. [1]


Hi girls, here is a link to a text book about mouse embryology it looks pretty good. hope it can help [2] let me know if the link doesnt work. Ive been working on the main page, so have a look and tell me what you think, Also what are we doing about references? If we have used information but put it in our own words do we need to put in text citations,or do we just reference the journal at the end? I just want to be very careful. Thanks!


Hey Elide, i think your work is looking really good. its very easy to read and understand. keep going!!!! emily


hey everyone, I have uploaded some of my timeline work. I'm not sure if I've gone into to much detail or not and also on how is best to present the timeline. It is fairly basic and definately needs some work - especially on presentation, grammar, etc. let me know what you think. Emily


 good site for stages or timeline- atlas of pictures of stages- The Edinburgh Mouse Atlas Project [3]

Hello girls, it's Begum. I put some info under the history section. Wanted to let you all know that I've got a fair bit of info, and I will do my part as best as I can. Btw Emily, I think maybe dot from would be best for you, but if you can use those lines that I was talking to you about on Wednesday, that would be great...I know it's hard.

hey everyone, i have put some info under the genetics heading and some under research. I am still struggling to find the appropriate info related to the topic of genetics because there is alot of info abt the different types of stains used in labarotories but not the genetics. I emailed Dr.Hill and have asked him what to include in my section specifically,hopefully he will help. So far i have just started it needs alot of more work to be done,girls just read thru my section n leme know wt u think of it. have a nice weekend everyone. Angama.


Hi girls! Begum, you history info is really good. If very interesting! I really like how you are doing it in order of dates of discovery and what they did, what they found etc! Cant wait to know more. Angama, your doing well! it sounds like your finding the info hard to get. I'll keep an eye out for you! If your stuck on what you sound be doing then i might have a few ideas. I remember Mark Hill saying that you should compare the genome to the humans genome. so maybe if the genome is the same size as the humans, could you descibe similarities or differences? I know that there is a link to the mouse genome on the mouse web page he gave us ( next to the discussion link). Are you just ment to list the mouse genome sequence? could you go into what genes code what, eg which one codes for the sex linked gene, is it the X and Y gene etc? hopefully Mark gives you some ideas. well as you might have noticed i've been adding to my stages. the only thing is im worried about there being too much info up there. basically ive tried to get all the info available included in my stages to make sure i cover everything, and then later i'll go over it all and edit and polish it up a bit. Ive done some drawings to the best of my ability, but i can scrap them if you all think they arnt professional enough. just thought i'd try to present the information differently. let me know if you think i'm including too much information. i think i'm having the same problem as you begum, there is lots of info! Elide

Thanks Elide. I'm trying. (Again, loved the artwork!)Btw, Emily, I had a think about your section and I think it might be too much 'clicking' back-and-forth if we link the displayed pic to the 'info' page. Don't stress, you've got the info (heaps which is excellent) but make sure you get some pictures soon so we can start drawing (I'm helping with the drawings as well ok). Mark said 'Nature' and 'Science' have useable images so lets make that our start. BTW, I will be using the question mark symbol(???) so I don't forget to reference. Begum

Hey everyone, I have found an online text book. it has a chapter on genetics and history and a lot of other stuff. [4] Emily

Hey girls. If you've seen my section, the info is not on the main page, but linked to another page. I thought that it might make everything look more neat. I thought we could all do it like that. It's just an idea. Something different. Maybe we could have something on the main page (picture of a mouse). Your thoughts everybody? Begum

hey begum, ur work looks really good. i like the idea of linking the work to another page. - we don't have to worry about to much info being on the front page and it gives people to option of viewing the work if they want to. ive been working on drawings, i'll show them to you next week but am not sure how to upload them at the moment. Emily

Thanks! That sounds great that you like the idea. About the photos that you are drawing, if there by hand, you can scan them somehow. But overall, 1. click 'Upload File' on the left hand side of this page 2. New page comes up: click 'Browse' and choose your file that you want to upload. 3. Name it (under the Browse button) NOTE: write down what you named the file as because like Elide says "...it's going to be lost in space!..." 4. Write down info/comments (like who is the author (YOU), and if the drawing is based on a picture) 5. UPLOAD! 6. Go to your section and just normally type this down to the area you want the picture to be seen:

File:THE NAME THAT YOU SAVED THE FILE UNDER.jpg
WHAT YOU WANT THE FILE NAME TO VISUALLY COME UP AS

Your thoughts Angama and Elide? (about the linking of our sections to separate pages?) Begum.

Oh and another thing: What do you girls think about my page, I've got a heading for each DATE and underneath each there are further subheadings (e.g. 'What did he do?'. Should I change them to just text, I mean, does it look messy with sub-sub-headings? Begum.


wow girls! great work.. okay so i asked mark about a new page and he said to avoid it because our info is meant to be on our one page. he said if there is extra information on what we wanted to say but is too much for the main page then have a link to our discussion page. (which is what im going to do) Begum your new page is fantastic!! you have done lots of work! but why dont you just put it on our main page? also girls i think we are getting too carried away with info. just keep it simple! i'm sorry i havent been around this week to work on it but i plan to get going asap. just fixing up some things, summarising, writing introductions etc. did you all read his note about slabbing info onto our page?? how about some introductions, and sentences to ease ourselves into the content. planning on trying to work on that now anyway..

also lets get the information flowing. why dont we go intro, history of model use, stages, timeline, genetics, then current use.. what do you all think?

hey, i thing that that sounds like a good, logical way to do the page. i've finished the drawings, just need to upload them. About the timeline information, is there anything specific that i should include. the stuff that is on the page is a little vague and so i need some advice as to what are key points that i should include. i know that the drawing are very simplistic, let me know wjat you think about them. ive put one up below. i just need a way to link it to text. emily


Thanks Elide. You know, I think that's a great idea. Have it all on one page, seems less 'diverging...', seems more COMPLETE. I love the ORDER as well. I'll fix all that up!

Hey girls, please have a look at what i've done on the timeline. the images are all hand drawn based upon the text: 'the house mouse'. if anyone could give me any ideas on how best to present the pictures - which would be better - next to or below the text? keep in mind that it is incomplete and there is an illustration for each day of development (i.e. 19 in total). if you think that is too many let me know, some may be similar to Elide's ones. Also, do you think i should put some colour into the drawings? Emily

I love your work Emily. All you need to do is put the info on the growth of the mouse that is on the main page, onto the page with the graph of the growth of the mouse embryo...we talked about that before any way-AND I think your parts finished! Begum. Angama, I added something to the end of your section that I thought was interesting. Have a look. And are you mentioning manipulation and 'shut-down' of the genes in your section?? Begum. To everyone, apparently Mus Musculus is the scientific name of the common house mouse, not the mouse. I was thinking of editing that.


HEY EVERYONE! well i've added in some pictures just to make it look more visual, change them if you have better ones.. and i'm going to be working on the current research section tommorow. oh i also added some graphs like we thought of for emilys section.. so i think my section is finished finally! what do you think? can i just say, I think the whole thing looks great! you girls have been a pleasure to work with! :) Thanks so much!!


hi girls, i am sorry..i have been very busy during the mid-sem break and i know we all had our exams and assignments due. but i was having some issues in my family and also the exams and assignments so didnt really had the chance to read wat u girls have got on the main page. i just finished reading thru it and it looks amazing..WELL DONE GIRLS!! you all have done a marvellous job...Eldie and Begum thanks for suggesting some main points to add for the genetics.i am currently working on it.. hopefully tonight i will have all the information on the page..Begum i love how you have presented alot of info into a very easy and understandable way..it makes so much sense..n it looks very nice with the pictures. Eldie and Emily great amount of work and the pictures and the graphs are superb. i just had a look to other groups pages. n i think so far our page looks very interesting with concise info n amazing pictures. n Begum yes i read what you have added thanks for tht..i will cu girls around..gudluck everyone. cheers. Angama.
Girls can you please help me out.. i am so annoyed..

like rite now i was typing some info and when i clicked to save. it says "conflict" so i think some one else is also editing the page at the same time that i am. and i lost all my work..arghh.. so which means i have to type it all again. is there any other way that it tells me that someone else

is also using it so i dont click on save or even preview 

because when i do tht i lost all the work tht i had. If anyone knows please let me know. thanks. Angama.


Current research : I have put some information in the current research part. not sure where they should be put. Begum, as discussed you can edit it or place it in its appropriate place.

Don't stress Angama at all, now you know, it will be over soon. Uploading it easy:

1. click 'Upload File' on the left hand side of this page

2. New page comes up: click 'Browse' and choose your file that you want to upload.

3. Name it (under the Browse button) NOTE: write down what you named the file as because like Elide says "...it's going to be lost in space!..."

4. Write down info/comments (like who is the author (YOU), and if the drawing is based on a picture)

5. UPLOAD! 6. Go to your section and just normally type this down to the area you want the picture to be seen:

It's easier than it is typed! Of you still have problems I will be at the embryo lab, of there is exams there the ANAT LAB opposite to it, if not Level 3 library computers.

maternal diabetes alters transcriptional programs in the developing embryo, mammary gland development in MMTV-CBLC transgenic mouse, hedgehog signalling inhibits palatogenesis and arrests tooth development in a mouse model of the nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome., Fibroblast growth factor 18 gives growth and directional cues to airway cartilage.

Hi girls, i think i have completed my section. could you all please just read thru it and leme know wat you think of it. i did it to the best of my ability. Hopefully you will all like it if you girls think therez anything more to add or to delete leme know..thanks. gudluck girls. Angama.

Angama your work is fantastic! Thanks so much! im sorry i wasnt around to help you with the problems. hope it went okay. your info is perfect! im very happy with our page! lets hope everyone else is :)

I love it Angama, good work! And the pictures you uploaded are very interesting. Cool. Awesome. Your done!! Begum.

Thanks Begum :) Girls gudluck and cu all tomorrow. Angama.

Discussion after peer assessment and constructive criticism

Hi girls, Ive started making some changes to the page based on the comments recieved. Note i've also started a glossary of terms. Also many of our comments regarded our references,so It would be great if we could all reference the same, lets say APA because this is the most common way for referencing. I have gone through our references and tried to format them in APA. many are incomplete references so i have bolded the references that are missing detail. please if you all could complete your references that you added to the list. Also shall we number the references so we can include the numbers in the text as in text references? like foot note? what do you all think... there have been many comments on our current research page.. so how would you all like to fix it? I personally think its way too much. It seems to have accumulated heaps of info from when I last saw it. Is there anyway of summarising the current research info to focus more on how they are used rather than the institute and scientists involved. I think the most important info in this section is what mice are being used to discover currently and proof of the year of study. Cant wait to hear what you all think! Elide

one more thing.. ive tried to edit the contents, as one of our peers suggested, however i cant seem to edit it. do any of you know how to do this? Elide

hey emily, i see you have reduced the heading in the contents!! thats great! i was just thinking that maybe we dont need so many headings in those 2 sections at all. what do you think about just making all the scientists and the names of people/ labs just in bold.?

Hi girls, have a look at the changes i have made to my section. let me know what you think. Emily

looks good!! also girls could you please add words from your sections to the glossary, as that whole list is only from the staging section. thanks. elide

Hello girls. I will be re-formatting the history section in order to get rid of the 'gaps' that my peers have mentioned. Also, Elide mentioned yesterday that placing all the 'History' pictures towards the right-side of the page would look more neat, as well as add to the flow of the page. I think this is a great idea. Begum. Oh, and what do you guys think about taking out some information (findings)? Some students have mentioned that there is too much information/researchers. And Elide, I'm might change the names of the researchers. like you said before, to bolded text. It would look much more neat. I might, also, apply this to the Genetics section. What do you all think?

Begum's Problem Hey. I placed all pictures to the right-hand side (history section), but the pictures don't correspond well with the text. Any suggestions?? Should I than put the towards the left? Love the change to the timeline section Emily.


HEY BEGUM!! so your problem.. I dont think the pictures need to match up because if they have a title of the person then the reader can find their picture. plus the comments are on the spaces and gaps between text, not the pictures.. so maybe just put them all underneath each other and even if they dont match up then at least the writing looks more organised. try making the images 200px and not so large and it could work better?. also the bit about taking out the headings in the genetics would be great!! bold would still look fine! goodluck! xox

--Begum Sonmez 14:54, 10 October 2009 (EST) TO ELIDE: I was going to change the headings 'Reproduction' and 'Theiler Stages' under STAGES to bolded text. What do you think? Plus, like you said before, I'm on that ref. list, I will summarise the current research, and change those headings. If the HISTORY pictures match up to the the text, it would be more convenient for the viewer, don't you all think so??? However, the text would appear better the other way with the images al together on the right. Yes, I'll do that.

Hey Begum! yes what a great idea about changing the headings in the staging section! the whole page needs to have the same structure throughout! I shall change them right now! :) i'm a little confused about the bit you said about what you said about the ref list. do you mean that you will fix yours? ive been through some of them and looked up the missing details. some are lacking their full reference though. but that would be so great if you could fix up your references. i think the ones in bold are the ones still needing work, but correct the others if you think they arent finished. well i think the history section looks great! even though the pictures dont match up, they are still there and they look neat and have the same format as the rest of the page. and even better there are no spaces! so it looks great!! i wouldnt worry too much, you've done a such great job providing detail, the pictures are just a bonus! the reference list looks great! thanks for your help! xox Elide

--Begum Sonmez 20:55, 11 October 2009 (EST)Hello girls! One more thing left: Current Research section. One student said to reduce the number of 'research', but include more information on each. I don't think adding more info under the research is necessary. But just keeping the 'breakthroughs' would be good, the more important ones. What do you all think? Also, what should the headings be, any suggestion? Should I keep the Organisations as the headings, or the names of the researchers involoved, and/or the dates?

--Elide Newton 11:41, 12 October 2009 (EST) hey. about the current research section. well now that it doesnt have as many spaces and gaps it doesnt look as long, so maybe thats why the student saids to reduce the number of examples. so i'm with you begum, keep the important ones. for example if there are 2 examples of its use in cancer then have only one cancer example. yes headings . i think maybe keep the organisation and date. see what the other girls think.. i'll have a think about it too, and see what we can improve on that section.. overall are we all happy with how its looking? i think its looking great! even the reference list doesnt look messy! :)

--Elide Newton 14:48, 13 October 2009 (EST) Begum! your work is amazing! the current research section looks so much better! I think the page is starting to come together now! what i plan on doing is giving the whole thing a good proof read to make sure the flow, format, text, and info is consistent throughout. what else should we do with it. is everyone liking the improvments so far? dont forget we only have tomorrow to work on it!

--Begum Sonmez 19:43, 13 October 2009 (EST) Thanks Elide!! I have and will continue proof reading the history and current research section (for any mistakes and grammar issues), so you don't need to proof read those sections in-depth (save you time). Just to let you all know, I may or may not get rid of some current research findings. I think we all did a great job, and our page looks very organised and professional. Well done to all of us.

--Angama Yaquobi 23:14, 13 October 2009 (EST) Hi Girls, as you might have noticed that I have changed some of the images in genetics section and have included more information about each of the images along the source info. I have read and viewed the History section and Current Research, it looks very nice in terms of formatting with alot of improvement, so i am really happy Begum you have done a great job, well done! Eldie I have added few images but am still not sure about one or two images if it has given permission for its use for general public. If i see you on thursday before the start of the lab i will show it to u so that you know what i mean. Like it doesnt say anything about the image that it cant be copied unlike some other websites tht at the bottom of the page it gives u a brief detail regarding the copyright policy. So may be i will tell you on thursday during the Visceral lab. :-) I have also added some terms in the glossary list and I think our page looks amazing. Lets hope that Mark like it. Everyone's section in my perspective looks very interesting and informative. So well done everyone.

--Elide Newton 17:21, 14 October 2009 (EST) TO ANGAMA: so i had a look at your images in the genetics section. i took the link to the webpage where you got them from to look for copyright laws. unfortunately i couldnt find anything on copyright for all of your images. and without copyright approval they cant be published on our page. so this isnt so good. for the 2 images 'transgenic mouse pup' and 'Conditional Gene Expression' these could possibly get approval from the author Wes Thompson by possibly emailing resler@mail.utexas.edu . The only thing is the lack of time we have left. the image of the researcher in the current research section doesnt have copyright either, so we might have to get rid of this completely, at least its only showing people and isnt vital to the understanding.

  • The image 'Examples of some commonly used mouse strains' has no info describing the point of the picture or source or copyright. does anyone know info about this image, otherwise it shouldnt be on the page.
  • The Image of Transgenic Mouse also doesnt have copyright approval.

We just need to fix these few things. so girls if we cant get copyright laws for the images do you all agree we need to remove the images? this is so unfortunate because they are such great images!! :(

overall i'm very happy with our page. I think we have all worked very hard on this assignment and thats all we can do. I'll go over it one more time, but i'm happy with it as it is. thanks all so much for all your effort and work put into this assignment. it has been a pleasure working with you all! please reply asap,so we can fix the images... coz its due in the morning!!!

Hey girls, the page looks much better especially now that the gaps have gone and the contents is much shorter. You've all done lots of work editing the page and it looks as though all your hard work has paid off. sorry that i have not done much editing. Based on the comments that we recieved there wasn't that much that i had to change for my timeline. --Emily Wong 18:48, 14 October 2009 (EST)

List of things still to do

  • proof read the whole thing
  • check if your images have info underneath, reference and copyright liscence (Angama you might need to check your genetics pictures.) If your busy I can do them for you but i need to know the reference and copyright permission. Elide

Changes made

--Elide Newton 12:17, 2 October 2009 (EST)

  • Removed table of stages from discussion page
  • Corrected introduction " the mouse has a similar genome to the human"
  • In stages section changed size of images to 200px and moved to the right
  • Removed spaces and gaps from stages
  • Formated stages section to look neater
  • Deleted the links to tables on discussion page
  • Added in table of theiler stages 12-14 which was on the discussion page
  • Started a glossary of terms

--Elide Newton 16:17, 5 October 2009 (EST)

  • Added in text citations to the staging section
  • Added in more definitions for glossary of terms and referenced glossary
  • Went through each reference of reference list and changed the format it into APA, bold for incomplete references.. to note that it needs to be fixed.

--Emily Wong 11:28, 6 October 2009 (EST)

  • Edited the contents so that it wasn't as long i.e. took out all the repeated "what did he do?" etcs.
  • Edited current research so that contents are not as long. Again taking out the "what did the do" etcs.

--Emily Wong 15:38, 8 October 2009 (EST)

  • Edited the timeline of development section by:
    • Taking out the written text and incorporated it into the captions below each drawing.
    • Rearranging the work so that it was in a better position
    • Linked the graph 'Average length of the mouse embryo' into the section by writing a small blurb on it.

--Elide Newton 10:44, 9 October 2009 (EST)

  • Removed spaces in sections current research and genetics
  • Moved images to the right and changed size to 200px in current research section
  • re-uploaded theiler stage 8 image with typo fixed ( reichards to Reicherts)
  • added information below images in the staging section.
  • added links to source below images in staging section
  • deleted 'Photo of mouse vascular development at Theiler stage 20' because I am unable to find copyright liscence
  • went through each ref and chagned to APA, had to look up dates and authors for incomplete references added by other students. still some are not complete (in bold) so if you added these references could you please fix.

--Begum Sonmez 12:28, 9 October 2009 (EST)

  • Changed the heading 'Chromosome number and banding patterns' under Genetics, from being a main heading to a sub-heading. This was a small mistake that had to be fixed.
  • Changed the sub-headings of the history section, that list the years, to bolded text. The reason for this change is that it condensed the amount of headings in the 'Contents', allowing the viewer to have an outline of the page instead of a massive list of each heading. As a result, the page looks more neat, and each section is consistent with eachother.
  • Placed all pictures in the History section to the right-side of the page. This is more consistent with the rest of the page, and adds to the flow of the page.
  • Placed 2 spaces between each finding, and 1 space between each part of the finding (For example, 'What did they find', 'The Importance'). Again, this is another feature which adds to the consistancy of the page. Many of our peers pointed out that our page was messy. This change helps to solve the problem.

--Elide Newton 20:38, 9 October 2009 (EST)

  • Removed headings from current research section and made them bold.
  • Finished the glossary of terms from the staging section
  • worked on current research. (removed spaces, formated, removed lists of names and added 'et al')

--Begum Sonmez 14:45, 10 October 2009 (EST)

  • Changed the sub-headings under the Genetics section to bolded text. There were no complaints about this from our peers. However, since this was applied to the History section, applying it to the Genetics section would be consistent and more neat.
  • Placed all HISTORY pictures beneath one another in order to be consistent with the arrangement of other pictures throughout the page.
  • Deleted some of the headings (what did they, how did they...) under the history section, as the contents of some of the headings were related. One student mentioned this. As a result, there is less headings, and a greater degree of clarity.
  • Edited the Reference list by dividing it into 2 headings ('Books and Articles' and 'Webpage'), and converted some more references into APA style. Just one more conversion left.
  • Added the definitions of 'Allophenic', 'Chimera', 'Corpus luteum', 'Somatic tissue' and 'Stem Cell' to the Glossary List.

--Elide Newton 19:44, 10 October 2009 (EST)

  • Removed headings from staging section and made bold instead to be the same as the whole page
  • Removed two gaps from the genetics section

--Begum Sonmez 14:24, 12 October 2009 (EST)

  • Changed some of the Sub-headings under the Current Research section to make it more consistent throughout this section.
  • Converted the information under each finding under the Current Research section into numerous small paragraphs because one student outlined that the use of the sub-sub-headings were good at first, but it than became overwhelming. This change enhanced the layout without using the sub-sub-headings and without ending up with a slab of text.

--Begum Sonmez 11:18, 13 October 2009 (EST)

  • Changes the heading 'THE MOUSE' from all upper-case to lower-case. This is consistent with the other main headings.

--Angama Yaquobi 19:35, 13 October 2009 (EST)

  • Removed some of the images in the genetics section because there was not much information about the image.
  • Replaced those images with new images containing information about the image.
  • Added the definition of 'Haploid', 'Mutation', 'Oncogenic', 'Renaturation', 'Telocentric', 'Transgenic', and 'Transposition'.

--Begum Sonmez 20:20, 13 October 2009 (EST)

  • Changed the word 'Are' to 'Is' under the introduction. Just a slight grammatical mistake.
  • Added to the comment under the Gregor Mendel picture under the history section, the words 'Copyright has expired'. This informs the reader/viewer about the copyright information. Proof read the Current Research section. Changed a few grammatical mistakes, and deleted unnecessary sentences. This shortened the content of each finding, providing a summary of the key points for the audience.
  • Added the reference of images used under the History and Current research section into the reference list. I think this was not done by mistake.

--Elide Newton 21:10, 13 October 2009 (EST)

  • proof read. added in 2 sentences to make the transition from 'history of use' and 'stages' flow.
  • added a sentence in after the genetics heading to keep the flow on from the last section.
  • added in Mb to The haploid genome is about 3 billion Mb long.
  • changed 'tha' the 'the' in genetics section.

--Elide Newton 17:57, 14 October 2009 (EST)

  • in looking for images for the gentics section which had copyright laws I noticed the 1st paragraph of the genetics section was the exact copy from wikipedia, so i rephrased the information so it isnt plagarised

--Emily Wong 19:05, 14 October 2009 (EST)

  • Resized the images in the timeline gallery so that they were 175px instead of 100px. This made the images have more of a presence on the page.