Wikipedia talk:USEP/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg FA13/Group 81D

Article Assessments

Sorry if I confused you Jason - I assessed two articles before I realized there was a list of articles to choose from. I have since updated it and there are two articles from the list. I need to read more thoroughly I guess! Rebeccachappel (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, no confusion here- there's a lot of information to read through so I kind of understood what had happened. Jfitz1974 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing an Article

Rebecca, It looks as if our next assignment is to choose an article upon which we'll improve throughout the remainder of the course. One thing to take into consideration I think is the state the article is currently in. We could choose an article that has minimal information, which would give us plenty of room for improvement, or choose an article that has quite a bit more information already. In the latter situation we would have to go through and verify everything that's there and decide whether or not we would like for it to remain (in an effort to not upset the individual who wrote the initial article). And of course we would want it to be a topic that interests us as well for the sake of our sanity- this shouldn't be an issue with me because I think I'd enjoy researching and writing about any of the topics listed. What are your thoughts? Jfitz1974 (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that the topic we choose should interest us (work you like isn't work! right? that's the goal I guess...). Of the 4 articles we assessed, I think the polysomy article and the extrachromosomal DNA article are of the highest interest to me. The article on polysomy surprised me in how little information was on it - it seems so much a part of very common genetic disorders that there should have been more updated. I don't know as much about extrachromosomal DNA but it would be an interesting article to investigate. It doesn't seem like anyone has 'claimed' an article yet so I think we should pick one in the next day or two before anyone else jumps on it. Thanks for getting this discussion started! Rebeccachappel (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some great disorders and conditions that arise as a result of polysomy. Looking at the Polysomy article that is currently written, it appears that it is part of 2 wiki project pages, Medicine and Molecular & Cellular Biology. It says that the project medicine article should follow certain guidlines recommended for that project. I like the idea of extrachromsomal DNA because we can cover a lot of ground with it (eukaryotic vs. prokaryotic, diseases and disorders that arise as result of mutations in it, mechanisms of drug and gene delivery using them, etc.) If someone held a gun to my head and said "pick one," then I would pick extrachromosomal DNA. But I am more than happy to go with either topic, like I said earlier, I am ok with all of the topics listed- any opportunity to learn more about anything is something that I enjoy. Jfitz1974 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extrachromosomal DNA sounds good to me! I also noticed there is a very good article on Polyploid which has a lot of information on it already. Let's sign up for Extrachromosomal DNA...I can do that now and we can always go back and edit later. Let me know if anything else comes up! Rebeccachappel (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks!!Jfitz1974 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article selection rationale

Just a starting off point. This is where the 200-300 word summary of why we chose Extrachromosomal DNA will go. I can start working on some research this afternoon and Monday -we can each add whatever information we find and then towards the end we can clean it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeccachappel (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. I'll be gathering some research as well this weekend and then once we get the summary to where we want it, we can move it onto our group project page.Jfitz1974 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look to you as an initial rationale for selecting our article? We chose the article “Extrachromosomal DNA” for our class project. It is a stub-class article rated with high importance on the project importance scale. The current article has no references or sources cited and has very little information provided other than a very basic definition and a few examples, leaving ample room for improvement and nearly a blank canvas with which to work. The last record of any activity on the article or talk page is from March 15, 2013 and prior to that the past activity was September 4, 2011. There is an abundance of data available describing extrachromosomal DNA and the many aspects surrounding it. We feel that the page can easily become a class B or GA article with a variety of different sections from the basic description extrachromosomal DNA, to the variations between different types of organisms, to disorders and diseases caused as a result of extrachromosomal DNA, to the isolation and extraction of extrachromosomal DNA, to the uses of extrachromosomal DNA in biotechnology and medicine. It is a topic that we both are excited about researching and sharing information about on Wikipedia. It is just something I sat down and put together this evening, it doesn't quite reach the 200 word limit but with a little work I think we can get it there. Thanks! Jfitz1974 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! I think if we use that and then add some potential sources of information and/or a very general sentence or two on the biological significance of extrachromosomal DNA then it would be complete. I'll try to add some of that this morning. Rebeccachappel (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for a final? What you had was pretty much what we needed - I just added a few sentences. I have just recently moved and am currently (impatiently) waiting on Internet to be set up in my house. I will be at the lovely Barnes & Noble using their Internet for another hour or two but then after that I might not be able to post our finished summary to the page. If you see this tonight and it's not posted yet will you do the honors? You can make any additional changes to it but I think it looks great! Thanks! Rebeccachappel (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We chose the article “Extrachromosomal DNA” for our class project. It is a stub-class article rated with high importance on the project importance scale. The current article has no references or sources cited and has very little information provided other than a very basic definition and a few examples, leaving ample room for improvement and nearly a blank canvas with which to work. The last record of any activity on the article or talk page is from March 15, 2013 and prior to that the past activity was September 4, 2011. There is an abundance of data available describing extrachromosomal DNA and the many aspects surrounding it. There is more classic literature describing the presence of different extrachromosomal DNAs in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes as well as more recent research surrounding the biological significance of extrachromosomal DNA in disease. We feel that the page can easily become a class B or GA article with a variety of different sections from the basic description extrachromosomal DNA, to the variations between different types of organisms, to disorders and diseases caused as a result of extrachromosomal DNA, to the isolation and extraction of extrachromosomal DNA, to the uses of extrachromosomal DNA in biotechnology and medicine. The significance of DNA outside of the nucleus is important and it is a topic that we both are excited about researching and sharing information about on Wikipedia."

I think that this looks perfect! I'll double check later this afternoon/evening and if it isn't on our page yet, I'll be happy to go ahead and move it over. Thanks! Jfitz1974 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assignment

Hi Rebecca, I couldn't find your sandbox so I went ahead and made an area on mine so that we can work on this week's assignment. I moved the references from the Unit 5 assignment over there as instructed, so now all we have to do is find more references and images to add to the list and discuss what we want the key points to be for our article. We'll also need to prepare a preliminary outline and then add our ideas for improvement to the talk page of the Extrachromosomal DNA article. I'll spend the rest of this evening researching articles (I already have a few good ones I think) and will get them added to the list on Monday. I just wanted to check in with you to let you know where I'm at so far. Thanks!! Jfitz1974 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks - I need to add a link to my sandbox on my homepage I guess...whoops sorry about that! I'll keep working on it tonight and then add what I have tomorrow morning. Thanks for getting this going! Rebeccachappel (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also went ahead and put together a very preliminary outline on my sandbox page tonight, just to have something up there since Tuesdays tend to be really hectic days for me at work (I go from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Tuesdays in the Fall). Please feel free to make any changes or suggestions that you would like to it. I also added several resources that we could possibly use; to be honest I haven't read much past the abstracts on most of them. Let me know what your thoughts are on the whole thing and we can go from there. Like I said, I just through the outline up to have something there- it is all susceptible to improvements. Thanks! Jfitz1974 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great! I added some references as well - it looks like most of the outline is covered in the articles. The book is a good source of information as well - especially general background information and then some of the more recent articles will be useful for newer research involving extrachromosomal DNA. I have been looking for images but haven't had any luck yet. Most of the images from the journal articles are graphical and might make more sense if we add that information to the article itself. I will add some information to the talk page of the article to let any other editors know we are improving the article. There isn't anything currently on the talk page so anything will be an improvement. I think we're all set besides that! (and I'll do that now). Thanks! Rebeccachappel (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rebecca, I just wanted to let you know that I put some material up on my sandbox page for my first two sections. I'll move it over to our article page sometime on Tuesday. Thanks! Jfitz1974 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it - it looks great! I'll add mine this morning sometime and then move it to the page sometime this afternoon. 23.118.36.171 (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added my information to the sandbox work area. It took me longer to cite / reference than expected so sorry it's a little last minute to post. I will definitely do my research, notes, and writing in a different manner next time (note: writing - from source 2! - on top of my notes get really confusing when you don't remember which list you got #2 off of...live and learn I guess). The Intro section will probably need some more work and I can keep trying to find some info. I read some interesting articles about extrachromosomal DNA in cancer / genome instability so I went ahead and added it to the page as well. I'll run my info through TurnItIn. Can we copy/paste from the sandbox to the article? Thanks! Rebeccachappel (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extrachromosomal Page

Hi Rebecca, I made some of the formatting changes to our work on the extrachromosomal DNA page as suggested by the reviewers, however I did not make any changes in the sections that you wrote. I'll be happy to change anything you'd like if you want me to, but I do not want to change any of your work without your consent. I'll continue to try and improve upon the sections that I wrote as well as contribute material for the remaining sections. If you are currently working on any of the other sections please let me know and I'll work on the others. If you aren't working on any of the other sections just yet, I will go ahead and start on the mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA sections. However, if you have begun work on either of those, I am just as comfortable working on the biotech section. I can also look for more information on diseases too. Some of the suggestions revolved around our reference list, and to be quite honest, I have trouble for some reason formatting reference lists here so I've asked one of the reviewers to provide some insight there. Happy writing and please let me know if you need me to do anything. Thanks! Jfitz1974 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason - I apologize - I didn't see this post last week (My 'Wiki Edit Emails' got very numerous and I must have missed this one). Your additions for this week look great! I had a very busy travel week/weekend so I'm just getting to posting my new stuff today for Unit 10. I can work on any section that needs some work - let me know if there is anything particular and I can do that first! I think the reviewers were great and I have a lot to go off of for my sections and hopefully can add some more stuff also! I'm staying put this week so I'll be able to work on things earlier than last week. Thanks! Rebeccachappel (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After going over all of the review again as well as all of your new contributions, the article looks great!! I definitely have more to add for the "in viruses" and "disease" sections and I can see what I can do about the "in biotech" category. As some of the reviewers mentioned - I need to make my sections 'flow' more (instead of having facts clumped together) which I can work on. I also have a few references to change and some to add. I will try to come up with a helpful "External Links" section that we can put either above or below the "Relevant Research" section. Thanks! Rebeccachappel (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my main contributions are added. I added a "recognition of viral DNA" subsection in the Viral section. Do you think this should be placed later with a biotech section? I still have some articles to read and will try to add some additional prose tomorrow. For now, I deleted the empty biotech section until I get more prose to make it a substantial section. I have some information about drug development based on the recognition of extrachromosomal DNA but I need to figure out how to not repeat myself in other sections. I also am having trouble finding pictures! I am hopeful to find one of viral DNA replication as well as a general picture showing cytoplasmic DNA in the cell. I'm going to continue working on those items tonight and tomorrow but wanted to get the main chunk of prose up for you to be able to look at. Thanks! Rebeccachappel (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The additions look great! I like the addition of the recognition of viral DNA section, and think it belongs in the viral DNA section. When I first read the section heading, I thought it was about the recognition of viral DNA by researchers, but I like what you've written though. Perhaps tweaking the title to read recognition of viral DNA by host cells could prevent others from thinking as I did initially? If you need or would like some help with the biotechnology section, just let me know and I'll get some stuff together. I've been having some difficulty finding good images to use as well. I'll help you look for some like you've mentioned. All in all, I think we've done a great job so far in improving the article! Thanks! Jfitz1974 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Contributions

Hi Rebecca, I'm a little stumped as to what we should do for the final contributions to our wiki page. The recent round of reviews have been quite positive. Do you think I should add a bit of prose to the relevant research section to maybe better explain the section to anyone who may view it as another reference section? Thanks for your work on this project, I think we did a wonderful job! Jfitz1974 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I agree, I was looking through and do not have too much prose to add...I think the main thing for this contribution would be to clean it up a little bit. I have some word re-arranging / explaining that I think I can improve slightly in my sections. A little prose about the relevant research might alleviate some confusion (I think it is pretty self explanatory but a little clarity never hurts). We'll just need to remember to add a final progress report section to our group page! (which might only say "cleaned up" etc...). Luckily we had some great reviewers who had helpful tips. I think the article looks great! Thanks for your work also, group project have the potential to be infuriating but this one was great! Rebeccachappel (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]