Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program/Courses/JHU MolBio Ogg 2013/Group 82A

Hi Aluquette, what article would you like to claim for our first Wiki article? I'm hoping we can claim one quickly before others pick them up. I like any of the articles we have chosen, especially your choice of Gene Library since there are alot of other Wiki sites we can link to and we could find a ton of references to go w/ it. We can also go into detail of what occurs during restriction enzyme use and transformation, etc. What do you think? Jmudukes88 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also really like the Genomic Library article. I was drawn to it because I am working on a project with a BAC library at work. There is definitely plenty to write about for that topic - what kinds of libraries, how they're made, what they are useful for. And like you said, we can easily link the article to other topics. I liked the insertion topic too but I am surprised that insertions and deletions have separate articles rather than being combined as INDELs. I think that topic may overlap a bit too with some of the other mutation related topics that seem popular in our class. Did you look at other DNA library articles too or do you prefer the Genomic Library article? Aluquette (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just prefer the Genomic Library article over all of the others due to the seemingly endless amounts of work published between articles, and tons of companies trying to sell their product. What do you say we jump in on this one? I'll go ahead and choose the article on my end just in case- let me know if you have a change of heart! Jmudukes88 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's do it! I signed up for it too on the class page. Aluquette (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale Discussion

So I guess we should get started on our article selection rationale soon. I was thinking maybe we could each write part of it and then combine what we have. I am not sure exactly what we are supposed to address... maybe why the topic is relevant and what we think people should know about it (what info we plan to add)? Maybe emphasize the wide range of uses for genomic libraries to show how important it is that there is good info available to people? What do you think? Aluquette (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that definitely sounds good! I apologize for the late response, by the way. I was out of town. I agree with writing on it’s relevancy to our subject, wide range of uses traditional uses. How about also adding any additional new uses for it? This summary can provide the basis for starting our edits to the page. I’ll also comment on the ratings of the page- looks like the users don’t like it judging by the grades. Here is what I have so far.

We believe the Genomic library page was a great choice for improvement because of the vast amount of content not already in the article. The Genomic Library page can use many changes: enhancing and adding content in the “lead” section as a better overview; including relevant, traditional uses in another section (modern uses too); adding clinical use in a new section; adding history/discovery in a new section ^[1] ;and the science/technique behind the method of creating a genomic library in yet, another section. The latter would expose the audience to the procedure of creating a library while also including links to several other Wiki articles. This is also a great section to include some type of diagram or visual aid (like the image in our text) on how to create genomic libraries.

Another area which could use some improvement is the “Types of vectors” section. We could add information regarding why either vector would be used (size), and possibly include how many clones would be needed to create a full genomic library (mathematically).

We consider these major additions to the article to improve it’s content. Current average ratings of the page score the Genomic library page a 2.4 out of 5 in 67 ratings; additionally, the trustworthiness of the article is given a 2.9 out of 5 in 67 ratings. The additional content and references, alone, should increase these dramatically.

^ Sanger, F (1977 Feb 24). "Nucleotide sequence of bacteriophage phi X174 DNA". Nature. 265 (5596): 687–95. PMID 870828. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Jmudukes88 (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just posted the rationale to our group page. I added some to it and edited it a bit. I condensed what you wrote a bit so it wouldn't be too long. If you'd like to change it further feel free. Also, I wasn't sure how to add a separate reference list for that section. When I tried to add your reference it got put in the list with the others from our assessments. Putting another "reflist" at the bottom resulted in all the references being displayed twice, so I am not sure how to do that. I can ask an OA if we need to.Aluquette (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Nice grammatical edits and improvements on the flow. I was dreading having to go back in to edit those. All we needed to do was "cut and paste" our current reflist down to the bottom of the page to fix the references issue :)

Jmudukes88 (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where To Start

Would you rather have the project started in your sandbox or mine? I think we went over some of the structure of how we would like to section the Genomic Library material, so that part shouldn't be too tough... do you want me to start up the section structure, then we can each find at least one reference and maximum one image for each? Jmudukes88 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me which sandbox we use... yours? I agree we have a pretty good idea for the structure and I'm sure it will evolve some as we find references and add content. That sounds good to me! Aluquette (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one other thing... I discovered how to make multiple reference lists (which might be useful if you already have a reflist on your sandbox from the practice citations). This way you can keep them separate. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:REFNOTE#Multiple_reference_lists Aluquette (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I hadn't seen that. Klortho (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that info is crucial! I could've used that before haha. I've added it to my sandbox and have the list of references we have so far, plus the addition of our textbook. I plan on finding a few more to add and making the summaries below them. Just to reiterate how we want to break the sections down, what do you think about this?

1. Genomic Library (Lead)

2. History

3. Methods To Create Genomic Library

a. Types of Vectors used

b. Math behind the type of vector used???

4. Applications

a. Current Use

b. Clinical Use?

5. References

Section 3, 3a, and maybe 4 seem to be the ideal areas to possibly add an image too. Jmudukes88 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it helped! I found the link in that page we're supposed to read/skim for unit 7 Manual of Style/Lead section. Yeah, that looks like a good start for the sections. We can always change them later if we need to, depending on what info we find. I will be able to work on finding references and adding summaries for them this week and should have plenty by Wednesday. I'll look for images too. Yeah, we should definitely be able to find some diagrams for those sections. Aluquette (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I just wanted to do a last checkup and see if you have any additional areas to work on/need help with. I'll do one last edit later tonight, and would like if you can switch edit any bad grammar, keep an eye out for phrases that could be said better/differently, etc. I plan on checking this out as well in the last go-around... Have you been able to find any extra images? It'd be nice to get one in our vector section, so I may look if I have time. I messed around trying to format the mathematical area of the page, but that coding was definitely tough. I figured to spend more time on content then having that area look perfect. Feel free to add more citations to support any paragraphs that seem low on them. I'll be in touch w/ you later tonight! Jmudukes88 (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was just looking through everything. I plan to spend more time on looking for or making images later on. Remember we have two more chances to add to the article before the final grade so everything doesn't have to be done right now. I think we've added a lot of good content. I will look it over tonight and edit grammar, etc. Also, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to use original research papers as references. Like we're supposed to use review papers or other secondary sources (textbooks, etc). I actually took one off that I had found before. We can double check but I think that was in one of the things we read about wikipedia earlier in the semester. Aluquette (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

haha you're correct about having more time to contribute to the page. I was under the impression the "second article posting" was literally a second Wikipedia article that we had to work on, until I read the description. I remember the original research paper comment in one of those guidelines, but I think that only pertained to specifically stating their work? I'll have to look into this later just in case. I never made any specific comments on studies or results, but instead what they were able to study due to using a genomic library. Maybe that gives Wikipedia-immunity! I'll get into contact w/ one of the OA's for help in coding the math portion. Jmudukes88 (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it takes some of the pressure off, right? :) I see your point about research papers, I just thought I remembered that being one of the rules but I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find where I read that. I just edited the article a bunch. I didn't get to the applications section yet, but I'm thinking we could add a lot to that next time so we can focus on it then. Also, I think I deleted something you added to the BAC section because I thought it would fit better under applications later on. Oh, I guess we're supposed to be having these article conversations on the article talk page now... (though some of this is about class too). Next time. Anyway, I'm satisfied with our first addition. Feel free to change it further (in the next hour). Aluquette (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just remembered our convo about "original research". Here's a link that sums it up a bit better: looks like we're good! original research. I'll post the next comments in the article talk page. I just didn't want you looking back and forth. Jmudukes88 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for clearing that up! That's good we can use research papers. Not sure why I thought we couldn't. Aluquette (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sanger, F (1977 Feb 24). "Nucleotide sequence of bacteriophage phi X174 DNA". Nature. 265 (5596): 687–95. PMID 870828. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]