User talk:Pparik10/Bio460Sandbox
Initial article assessments from Ppatel61
[edit]Great start to this article! This is a well composed article. It is important to note neutrality of tone is sustained throughout the entire article. However, I strongly believe that a distinction should be made among the different types of cell potency. I do have a concern with the readability of this article for laymen audiences, as the scientific jargon is confusing. The section for oligopotency seems to be missing citations.
Hey mate I agree with your comments. However, I don't think the jargon poses as a problem, specifically because most of the technical terms are hyperlinked to other Wikipedia page which more effectively elaborate on the topic. It's up to the user how often and when to refer to the respective Wiki pages. The distinction idea is a good one, as the transition to the different parts does seem particularly abrupt. -- Poojan Parikh February 4th, 2014
The structure of the article is well-formatted and designed. I felt that neutrality in tone was not maintained in the article, and that a "pro-stem cell therapy" ideology was reinforced. I think that more clinical trial studies should be shown under that subsection, along with further elaboration on the BioTime clinical trials already mentioned. Furthermore, I think that relevant U.S. policy underpinnings should be mentioned in the "Embryonic Stem Cell Controversy" subsection, keeping in mind neutrality of tone.
Initial article assessments from Pparik10
[edit]The elements of a general outline of a good Wikipedia article are preserved in the formatting. The spelling and grammar is proper. The references have already been listed. However, the article could benefit from more elaboration of "Limb Regeneration," extending possible explanations to tissue regeneration in humans. Furthermore, a connection to Stem Cells could be made as both resemble each other's functions.
This stub is not sufficiently developed. There are explicit parts which need to be incorporated and divisions/subsections which need to be made for proper flow of thought. Essentially, there is no proper introduction to the topic. The introduction should solely consist of preliminary groundwork delineating the basic process of organogenesis. Additionally, subsections need to be made regarding the various dermal layers that lead to the formation of internal organs. Case in point, "ectoderm," "endoderm," and "mesoderm" should have their own subheadings that relay information specifically relevant to organogenesis. For the little information the the stub does cover, it remains broad in its coverage and specific to the topic. The picture is also relevant to organogenesis and aides in the understanding of it. My primary focus would be on replacing the 'stand alone list' with a more elaborated version that makes better connections.
Great assesment, but I disagree with you on the topic of the picture included in this article. I believe this picture does a great job of showing the development of each germ layer, but it shouldn't be the first picture that a reader sees on the article. Unfortunately, I can't tell you exactly what would be the perfect picture for this spot, but I can suggest the picture already in place would be better off later in the article when you talk about each germ layer and how it develops into its respective organs. --Ppatel61 3 February 2014
User:Ppatel61 and User:Pparik10, First, a technical point: your discussion should be on this talk page rather than in the sandbox page, just as you would do for an article. Now a few thoughts on the articles you identified… I think that the Cell potency and Stem cell therapy articles may be very closely related to your presentation. However these two articles have a lot of content already and, although you have some very good suggestions on how they might be improved, I think it will be much easier to expand a stub such as Blastema or Organogenesis. I found a couple of review articles on stem cells and blastemas here and here. Organogenesis is, of course, a very large topic so it might best be done by including a lot of smaller sections that link to other articles. Think a bit more about which you are most interested in writing about and add your comments to this page. Good ideas so far! Biolprof (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- When you have reached a consensus, you can alert me by inserting my user name anywhere on the page like I did with your names at the beginning of this post. Biolprof (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)