Hey Min, do you have any strong preferences? I'm starting to look through the articles that you suggested. It looks like we'll probably be choosing from one of the four articles we described on our group page unless you have any others in mind. I'm leaning towards missense mutation at the moment but I'll keep you updated as I make more progress. Bcheon1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron, my selection is only for edit practice purpose in wiki. Please do not give any weight in any of my selection in your evaluation. They are all same to me as they are all new. If you know one topic better than others, please choose that one. I will follow up with my learning. regards, /Mhk5600 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Min, that's fine. We still have some time to look at potential articles so keep me updated if you change your mind or if you end up finding something you like. We should get in touch over the weekend to make a final selection and to write up a summary explaining our choice. Bcheon1 (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron, Can you review my selections, origin of replication and Phylogenomics? I want to hear your opinion. My assessment may be biased one direction. You may also be able to find that your selection can be better choice for us to work on together based on your judgement. If you don't mind, I will read your selections as well and add some comment below your assessment. Let's do this over this weekend as you said so that we could lock down one.
For a summary what others are considering are,
82A: Insertion, Genomic library, Restriction site, and Nicks.
82B: Oskar, Gene Knockdown, Terminator, and Nondisjuction.
82C: Restriction site, FsrA, Adenosine diphosphate, and Nucleoside
Hi Min, thanks for looking into more articles. Origin of replication and Phylogenomics certainly do look like promising candidates. I like how they both have a little bit of development so that we wouldn't have to start completely from scratch. On the other hand, the development is still very much lacking so that we will have much to add. The main drawback I see is that these two seem to be a little more conceptually difficult so I may have trouble describing them. Bcheon1 (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Min, I just took finished taking a more detailed look at the four articles we were considering. Below are my thoughts on each:
Phylogenomics is something I would prefer not to do because it seems too broad for us to cover.
Origin of replication is pretty good. It already has fair amount of development so it would give us a good guideline on what to include and what to improve.
RecA is okay but I think it will be difficult. I took a look at the current source list and the primary literature regarding this topic and it looks like most of the research is recent. Remember that we will need to use secondary sources and since much of the research was done in the past couple years, I don't think we will have many secondary sources to work with.
Missense mutation I think will be our best bet, in my opinion. This has a lot of potential because there is a lot that we can expand on and make parallels to such as diseases caused by missense mutations.
Hello Byron, I agreed on your comment about Phylogenomics and RecA. Those areas are rather new field with a developing concept. Would be good, but not good for Wiki article. Now there are two left, unless we picked other candidate article from Dr.Ogg's class webpage. Origin of replication and missense mutation. Let me start 2 new threads, one for Origin of replication and missense mutation. This 5 level of indentation is too deep to see in one screen wide. /Mhk5600 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of Origin of replication and Missense mutation
'Origin of replication'. I picked this article as we just read from Molecular class in DNA replication. My moto was that let's pick an article that would be within a range of this class, Molecular biology. In that way, we can do this Wiki project, while learning about a detail of this article. /Mhk5600 (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'missense mutation'. I found this topic is also a part of ch15 in a current course. I did not know that, when I see this article at the first time. This ch15 will be covered in 2 weeks. That is a good timing and our reading would be used for a dual purpose. I don't think, either one can't this wikiproject goes wrong. I am waiting for you and others' comment./Mhk5600 (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Min, it was a good idea to see when these concepts line up with our course. I agree that both articles are very promising. I still have a slight preference for missense mutation because I believe it has a higher potential for improvement for the reasons I mentioned above. when I look at Origin of replication, I feel like I would have a hard time coming up with new sections because so much of the core foundation is in place already. As for you, what are your preferences? Thanks! Bcheon1 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. Thanks for asking my opinion. I gave some thought and read a few short and long articles about missense mutation. I can't give any weight on either. I want to choose article, missense mutation, that will help us for Ch15 at least for an immediate future benefit. I'd like to learn about it as well. Let's move on to the next level, writing up the rationale, with this article! Can you write up the first draft of the rationale? One more thing. I see a few 'talk' going on "Group 82X" update. Please let me know, if you want to update that. /Min 68.116.172.204 (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Min, that sounds good. I'll start the first draft and then you can take a look to edit it or add on. As for the "few 'talk' going on" regarding the "Group 82X" update, I don't know what you are referring to. Could you please clarify? Bcheon1 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, here. Thanks Byron. About "Group 82X", there have been a few thread of talk with Class's Ambassador and Dr.Ogg how to update such a field in Wiki Class Homepage. I think there is a way of doing it, or it has been a clear direction of how to do update article selection page. I will update that section with our decision, missense mutation. /68.116.172.204 (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. Table for Article selection page has been updated. I can confirm that from table edit page. However, for some reason, our wiki class webpage for Article selection table has not been updated yet. I am guessing that there is a bit of time to merge table into the class wiki page. I will keep my eyes on it. If it is not resolved by the mid afternoon, I will post a help to class's Ambassador page or e-mail to Dr.Ogg for a help. /Min /Mhk5600 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Min, remember to add our article to the table at the very bottom, next to your username. It looks like you're not logged in so you should do that first. Bcheon1 (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done for Unit 6, aren't we? I see missense mutation is listed article selection page as well as next yours and my name at the bottom of class webpage. I also found that you updated the rationale at group's project page as well. Anything we skipped? Let me know. /Mhk5600 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Byron. Just to clarify, I read your write up about the rationale. I am satisfy with that. I won't edit any of your word. That is very straight and good enough to establish the rationale. /Mhk5600 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Min, we need to start getting some material together for our article in one of our sandboxes. This is for the Unit 7 assignment. Whose sandbox do you want to use? I will be busy later so I'm thinking about getting a head start now that I have some spare time. Bcheon1 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. I just read a direction about Unit 7 Wiki. I also read Unit8-9 Wiki direction as well. Per a direction, we need to get about 8 to 10 different (and selected) reference sources for each of different paragraphs that we are going to create during Unit 8-9. Whose sandbox to use? It does not matter as you said. I am a bit busy of catching up past few chapters for Quiz 2 until the end of SAT, probably. Please pick the one at your choice. I will play along. Thanks. /Mhk5600 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow we are so indecisive. If you don't have a preference, I'm going to use a RNG. It's totally fine if you can't start immediately. In fact, I hate being on top of everything when I should be procrastinating. But unfortunately, I will be more busy next week so I'm hoping to make some early progress. Bcheon1 (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. I am sorry to put Unit 7 Wiki imitation on your shoulder. I can be a random number generator. Please start Unit 7 Wiki at your sandbox first. I will add my input on key points that you are going to describe. When I am able to join Unit 7 Wiki progress in this weekend, I will come into your sandbox to add more links with key points from my point of view. Please bear with me on this course. I needs more time on a course reading. Thanks and Regards. /Mhk5600 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Byron. I come back on this Wiki now. I am reading about missense mutation. I will start with a few of key points that should be in the Wikipedia article for out topics, missense mutation. I also think that these key points would better starting with a new thread in this talk page. Let me know your opinion. /Mhk5600 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Min, that sounds good. I am actually having some trouble finding a good picture that has a suitable copyright status. It would be great if you could take a look as well. These were the best I could find but they're not in English: Types of mutations 01Types of mutations 01-frBcheon1 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. I have been googling for some time now in image/article section. I am trying to pick a few ones that well-aligned with what I can read from a textbook. When I read an article, I may have better chance to pick the better one. /Mhk5600 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. Do you know a good practice that I can use to select a suitable image from Internet(like google image)? I thought it is a simple to pick one. When I read a description of valid image status per Wikipedia:Image use policy, I am not sure if my selection of image is valid or not. "image use policy" is not so clear. /Mhk5600 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, this looks very thorough. I'll continue to look into anything else I might be able to add to it. Perhaps there might be new developments from the past few years that is significant enough to mention here. Bcheon1 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your User:Bcheon1/sandbox. I made some update(figures and one additional article/quick summary). Later part of tomorrow, we may need to copy key points from 82D to the Preliminary outline section for Unit 7 Wrap up. /Mhk5600 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I saw your changes and they look great. I've been having a hard time finding more suitable free images so we may need to adapt (i.e. translate) the foreign language figures. I'm going to start commenting on the additional references soon. Bcheon1 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Byron. Please check the following info from the Molecular Wiki Web page to have an additional resources. From a class wiki page, you need to go further down to "Further resources" section, then, "Figures and Images". It has 2 resources where we could find license-free figures and images. I will go there later to search for missense mutation. /Mhk5600 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Min, thanks for bringing these to my attention. I actually searched Wikimedia Commons already and that's where I got the initial 2 pictures.Bcheon1 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to use it but I'm not sure if it's in public domain. It looks like the image belongs to the U.S. National Library of Medicine and when I check the copyright page, it says "Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain." It seems like we may be able to use it but I'd like to confirm with Klortho. Bcheon1 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to use it. The copyright page does say, "you may encounter documents, illustrations, ... contributed or licensed by private individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws", but there is no indication anywhere that this image was contributed by anyone else. In fact the image itself has a watermark indicating NLM is the source. If you are in doubt, you could send a message to NLM via the "contact us" link at the top. But, if I were you, I'd just upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and see if anyone challenges you about it. I don't think it will be a problem. Let me know if it is. Klortho (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you opinion and your quick reply! I was thinking along similar lines but I just wanted to run it by you before I actually used it (in case I missed something). Bcheon1 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
