User:Cksmith8/sandbox

Intervertebral disc Evaluated

Introduction

-Introduction is quite brief, and there are no citations.

Structure

-Some repetitive sentences. (ie. talks about the nucleus pulposus being inside the fibrous intervertebral disc multiple times)

-anulus vs. annulus spelling--both are used

-talks about function quite a bit in structure, may be able to move some of that into function section.

-atlas section seems distracting, is it necessary?

Development

-very little content

Function

-lots of repeated information from structure, also some more structure information in function section.

Clinical Significance

-missing some citations

Other

-only 10 citations in whole page, doesn't seem like very much....lots of scientific information.

-some citations are simple .com websites, seem a little questionable.

First Comment into Intervertebral Talk Page (posted by Shawn Brookins) (2/17/17)

Concerning citations, I believe Panjabi's two-part article in the Journal of Spinal Disorder would be an apt citation for this topic, as it covers information that remains uncited in the article, in addition to being from a peer-reviewed academic medical source ( & ). Likewise, citation 7 (McGraw Hill) is linked to Launchpad--an academic supplement that is not universally accessible without a subscription. Therefore, an alternative reference to an article or other text based source would be ideal (Urban and Roberts 2003). Throughout the article, scientific jargon is used without accompanying citations or definitions which could be construed as plagiarism potentially.

Overall, the article displays an avoidance of biased perspectives (with the exception of focusing on IV discs in humans), favoring a neutral/objective viewpoint. It also excels in the area of concise, yet comprehensive coverage of the topic, merely requiring some elaboration on auxiliary topics and defining scientific jargon in a more accessible register (mentioned above).Shawnbrookins (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Jump up^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481539/
2. Jump up^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1490034
3. Jump up^ http://www.o-sommet.nl/wp-content/uploads/Panjabi-stabilizing-system.pdf
4. Jump up^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC165040/

First Edit on Page--Intervertebral Disc (with citation) (2/23/17)

It is important to study clinically, as intervertebral discs degenerate sooner than any other connective tissue, often leading to back pain.

Assignment to Group Dissections (3/1/17)

1. Perch

• Why?--When I was young my dad liked to take me fishing, so I am somewhat familiar with the basic structures of a small fish but I would like to become more knowledgable about the detailed internal structures.
  • Possible Articles to edit:
    • ctenoid scales
    • operculum
    • lateral line

2. Microbat

• Why?--While in Ecuador over 2016 J-Term, I was actually able to touch multiple external structures of a bat. This has sparked my curiosity in their internal structures.
  • Possible Articles to edit:
    • Tragus (ear)
    • Patagium

3. Garter Snake

• Why?--Throughout my lifetime I have held countless garter snakes. I would love an opportunity to get to study them from an anatomic perspective rather than trying to scare my mom.
  • Possible Articles to edit:
    • The actual page could use some work, seeing that there is no anatomy section in it...
    • cloaca
    • Duvernoy's gland
    • Vomeronasal organ

Bibliography Assignment (3/9/17)--Ctenoid Scales (final bibliography drafted posted on Joe Perez's sandbox)

Notes:

-ctenoid scales are only a subset of the broader Fish scale page, so creating a separate page for it may be a possibility?

-section regarding ctenoid scales is very short... possible sections to include:

• evolution
• go into more detail regarding the variation between crenate, spinoid, true ctenoid scales
• scale sexual dimorphism
• development

References:

-http://mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4196.1.6/9422 (Scale ontogeny in the cardinal fish family Apogonidae)

-http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.plu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=3e20c0c6-d0d1-4ded-a3e2-234668343340%40sessionmgr4006&hid=4209 (Sexual dimorphism in scales of marbled flounder...)

-http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1452&context=masters_theses_2 (Genetic analysis of cichlid scale morphology)

Article Drafts: Ctenoid Scales

Notes: There is only a very short section for ctenoid scales throughout Wikipedia. Instead of making new sections/subsections within that section, I think it would be most beneficial to imbed valuable information in various parts throughout the section that is already made. I think adding 3 to 4 sentences regarding development is important as it explains how the ctenoid scales came into existence, and can be added in the second half of the section. Also, the picture in this section doesn't do a very good job showing the physical characteristics of the ctenoid scales. If I can get a good image from the perch we are dissecting, I believe it could be very advantageous to add that into the section. Below is my draft for the development addition:

Draft: Ctenoid scales, similar to other epidermal appendages, originate from placodes and specific cellular differentiation makes them exclusive from other appendages that arise from the integument. The development process begins with an accumulation of fibroblasts between the epidermis and dermis, forming the papillae. After more differentiation, collagen fibrils start to organize themselves in the dermal layer, which leads to the initiation of mineralization. The circumference of the scales grows first, followed by thickness when overlapping layers mineralize together.

Peer Review/Copy Edit (3/23/17)

Group 1: Snake (added to Sara Newman's Sandbox Talk Page)

Sara: Really great job finding an ample amount of information regarding snake skin, I too agree there is a good amount of information that could be added on the actual skin (aside from the scales). Because you have so much information from a variety of sources, I think the hardest thing for you now is going to be figuring out how to effectively put the content into sections that will best represent the material. From the information I have read from your sandbox, my suggestion would be to try to formulate it into 3 sections: Display (appearance), Function, and Evolution (regarding why the particular structures of the skin are the way they are). Your sources all seem to be providing neutral information.

Ryan: Make sure to embed a link into your article when you are writing about it like so: Duvernoy's gland so it is easier for people to refer to it when they are reading your comments. I think you have solid information, but maybe you could elaborate a little more as to where you're going to embed this information into the article. The article for the Duvernoy's gland is so bare I would be interested in knowing if you'll be making new sections, or simply adding to the Function section. If I were you, I would try to add one or two new sections depending on the information you end up collecting. Also, an addition of a picture to this article could be very useful. If it is possible to obtain some sort of picture from your dissection I would suggest using that.

Huy: I think you have found some quality information and have a good idea as to how you are going to structure it. Although, one addition that I might suggest as unnecessary is the relative anatomy to other organs. In the Structure section of the vomeronasal organ it contains a very good visual representation of where the organ is associated with all the other organs/structures within the head. I feel like that gives a good enough map for the reader and not much more information is need. Besides that, your sources seem to be good and contain neutral information.

Group 2: Iguana (added to Courtney's Sandbox Talk Page)

Courtney: It looks like you've got some good sources that you can pull some excellent detailed information from. One question I have is if you're planning on adding your new information to the Iguana page or the Green iguana page, because the iguana page has significantly less information then the green iguana page. I think putting the information you gather about the heart in one of those two pages would be more beneficial than adding it to the actual Reptile page, because I'm sure that there is a lot of variance in heart anatomy between the large number of species that make up the "reptile" group. Also, if you are able to get some quality images of a heart cross section from your dissections, I think those would be valuable to add to the page as well.

Lexie: It seems like you have a really good idea of what information you want to add to the page. The dewlap page is very bare, with even less information on the reptiles section of it. What other information could you add from your sources to the page to help give it more richness? Maybe add a section on the evolution/development of the dewlap? All of your sources seem to be neutral and reliable.

Mikayla: I think focusing on the skeletal structure of the iguana is a very good idea, as there is very little information on the Iguana page. What sources will you be using to compare the iguana skulls to other species of lizards? Providing graphic images from your dissection could be very advantageous for this page. If you are creating an entirely new skeletal section, is there anything else you could add to help give this section some more depth? Maybe try to find a few more simple bones you can add. Besides that, your sources look very reliable, and I like how you all are connecting your topics together.

Feedback Responses (4/5/17)

I agree that I use too much jargon in my draft without either explaining it in more detail, using a picture, or linking it to an existing page. I also agree with Ayersmm that a few times I used phrases that were a bit too ambiguous and need some clarifying. I think this is due to paraphrasing things I don't fully understand. I believe a good figure would help with my draft as well (although I haven't found a figure for ctenoid development thus far), and I am also in the process of getting some scales stained from our perch that I will hopefully be adding to the page. Below is my original draft compared to my updated draft, with those feedback responses in mind. I have tried to clarify my ambiguous phrases, and embedded links to jargon I felt appropriate.

Original: Ctenoid scales, similar to other epidermal appendages, originate from placodes and specific cellular differentiation makes them exclusive from other appendages that arise from the integument. The development process begins with an accumulation of fibroblasts between the epidermis and dermis, forming the papillae. After more differentiation, collagen fibrils start to organize themselves in the dermal layer, which leads to the initiation of mineralization. The circumference of the scales grows first, followed by thickness when overlapping layers mineralize together.

Updated: Ctenoid scales, similar to other epidermal appendages, originate from placodes and distinctive cellular differentiation makes them exclusive from other appendages that arise from the integument. Development starts near the caudal peduncle, along the lateral line of the fish. The development process begins with an accumulation of fibroblasts between the epidermis and dermis. Collagen fibrils begin to organize themselves in the dermal layer, which leads to the initiation of mineralization. The circumference of the scales grows first, followed by thickness when overlapping layers mineralize together.

Draft #2 (4/12/17)

Draft #2: Ctenoid scales, similar to other epidermal structures, originate from placodes and distinctive cellular differentiation makes them exclusive from other structures that arise from the integument. Development starts near the caudal peduncle, along the lateral line of the fish. The development process begins with an accumulation of fibroblasts between the epidermis and dermis. Collagen fibrils begin to organize themselves in the dermal layer, which leads to the initiation of mineralization. The circumference of the scales grows first, followed by thickness when overlapping layers mineralize together.

Images: I still haven't found a picture of ctenoid scale development, but we are meeting with Dr. Carlson this week to get get scales from various parts of our perch stained. We will then take pictures of that to add to the page.

Going Live (4/18/17)

I added my updated draft into the fish scale page of wikipedia. I added it to the ctenoid scale section of the page, but I didn't create an entirely new section. I simply just embedded it within the other information on the scales. Hopefully I'll be able to add the image of the stained scales within the next week or so.

Going Live Pt. 2 (4/26/17)

Three ctenoid scales from various locations of a perch were stained. Significant variation can be observed between the medial (middle of the fish), dorsal (top), and caudal (tail end) scales. The ctentii of each of the scales is labeled.

I added this image of the stained perch scales and the accompanying caption to the fish scale page in the ctenoid scale section. Please let me know if there is anything else I should add/take away.