Talk:Homeotic selector gene

==This article should be merged with the Hox gene main page. This is clearly an undergrad project created for a grade, because it duplicates some of the sections in the main Hox page, uses the Alberts textbook for many of its sources, and refers only to Drosophila (Hox genes are found in all Bilateria). Moosepuggle (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Review - 26 Nov 2012
Hi guys. I'm just giving you another review to try and help out with editing the article. Great job in getting all your content transferred to the article page! It looks like it is coming together for you quite well! Congrats!

In reviewing the article, I found a few things that could use some editing/improvement. Some of the suggestions below, you may know about, and others maybe not. And keep in mind, these are my opinions, so use them at your discretion if they can be helpful at all.

1. There are several places in the text that need some grammatical corrections to make the noun match the action of the verb of the sentence. For example, from your "Description" section, "The human body continues to be more complex as we develop in life and in this growing complexity there are simplifying feature that creates a better understanding of the whole developmental process"
 * To make the sentence grammatically correct it should read: The human body continues to become more complex as we develop in life and in this growing complexity, there are simplifying features that create a better understanding of the whole developmental process.
 * This is just one example, but there are several like this throughout the article. Just give it a good (slow) read-through to make some of these minor corrections.

2. There are a few sentences that seem to run-on and/or don't seem to make sense to me. An example from the article would be "An example is the fact that various tissues organs such as teeth or digits, molars and incisors are built as well as variations that arise from fingers and thumbs and toes with repeated structure variations. This process is called modulated repetition hence creating a scenario that raises a lot of questions: what are the basic construction mechanism that is similar to all the objects of the given class, and how is this mechanism changed in order to give the observed variations?"
 * Again, I think just reading through the article a few times and you can catch many of these types of sentences that may need some re-structering and/or clarification.

3. Another thing I noticed is that under your "History" section you have the terms "Hox Complex, Homeotic Genes, Bithorax Complex, Antennapedia Complex, and Homeotic". I wonder if it would be a good idea to maybe include a section prior to the "History" section and simply name it "Definitions" or something similar. You could then move the aforementioned terms and their respective descriptions to that section. Just a thought. May help to understand prior to reading further into the article.

4. Another thing I noticed, is that there are several terms throughout the article that could be "wiki-linked" to other articles on Wikipedia. Just a few examples include: halteres, Antennapedia, bithorax, and Drosophila. It is pretty easy to add these types of links by simply putting brackets around them if there is a Wikipedia article relating to them.
 * For example: Drosophila

5. The last thing for this review that I wanted to mention is that you may need a few more sources (citations) for your article content; unless a lot of your content came from just a few scientific journals. I'm not sure if you have seen these, but the links below are two really great citing tools that basically make the in-line citations for you simply by inputting the PMID or DOI. They are as follows:
 * http://sumsearch.org/cite/
 * http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py?doi=10.1093%2Fhmg%2F7.2.227

Well, that is all for now. Like I said, I hope that these suggestions can be of some value to you. I will try to take another look at your article by the end of the week to see if I can be of any more assistance. Great Job! Rexsmiley (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rex for your great suggestions. We will modify accordingly. Seguncha (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Review - 27 Nov 2012
Hello guys! Nice progress on the article! I agree with Rex on all the points. Just to elaborate on few things...

(1) The articles needs some minor proofreading on grammar and punctuation.

(2) The layout still needs improvement.
 * I have trouble understanding the approach that you guys are taking with the section headings. Are figures there to guide your content structure? Are 'figures' going to be left as section headings in the future?

(3) I definitely think more citations are needed in this article.
 * If you guys don't know where the previous editor(s) got their information from, there are websites that compare the content of your article with the existing journals. High match may indicate that the person got his/her information from that journal/source. Perhaps it would be a good use here to check some of the sources and content validity.

Overall, great job on your article guys! It looks even greater now with some of the figures added! :-) Sytae (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Molecular biology of the cell
The book "Molecular biology of the cell " is accessible online from the NCBI, still copyrighted of course. Your ref 1 & 3 could be consolidated or you could search within the book on the site and put in the chapter and chapterurl relevant, pages too if you have the book. The following template should work giving

In the Figure 4 section inline refs to Struhl, and Zink & Paro with copyright symbols and the journal publishers suggest a cut and paste.

Article Review - 1st Dec 2012
Hi Group 83E, I wrote down a couple of points for making your article even better. You guys are doing a great job at compiling the contents and I am sure you all know it too that a lot of work still needs to be done. But the reviews can be very helpful when you go to edit the article as a whole so this is just to help you guys out a little bit. I wrote down a couple of points about the article and it seems like Rex and Susan both pointed out the same points that I noted. But I am still going to list them down here:

1. In the description part there are a few really long sentences that would make it more understandable if they were broken down into different sentences like "here are subtle individual variations in different sites amongst basic differentiated cell types such as muscle cells or fibroblasts which are organized into a limited variety of tissue types, such as muscle or tendon which are repeated with subtle variations in the different regions of the body."

2. The description, in my opinion should include a little more about the homeotic selector gene. If you read the description by itself it is hard to connect that it belongs to this article, therefore adding a bit more about the gene itself will give it a good introduction to the article.

3. The history section looks great contentwise, but there are definitely a lot to improve still. You used the work "bizarre" in the first paragraph and I guess using using "unsual/unexpected" would be more appropriate wikipedia-wise. And there are also a few grammatical errors like "In the Antennapedia mutant"- I am sure once you give the article a thorough read you'll be able to correct them all. This is just to guide you through editing.

4. As Rex mentioned, I feel there should be a different section called 'related defination' where you can list down all the definitions that are required in order to relate to the article and that would make things more easier to understand and also the arrangement would look good too.

5. I am sure you are just compiling all the figures and information that go with it but just make sure at the end the descriptions go under each figure rather than as new sections of the article.

6. Another thing that I noticed was that some of the abbreviations used in the article were not defined before they were used like "Antip". That is one more thing that needs to be done since it is important in scientific articles.

7. And lastly, the headings are a little confusing but I feel it is still too soon to arrange everything in place. But since you are compiling it is bound to be a little disoriented but think of headings that can be effective for a larger paragraph than many headings with shorter paragraphs.

8. Try to link some of the genes and definitions if there are already wikis on them. It will be easier for you guys rather than defining them all over again.

Great Job so far GOOD LUCK! Rmohsen1 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Final week mini-review
Hi, guys. Here's a final-week mini-review of your page. It is just a few random notes, that I jotted down while skimming the page, and is not intended as a comprehensive review.


 * I am not crazy about a lot of the content in the "Description" section. I don't think you need to write so much about why this topic is important.  It is not about the gene itself, and is distracting, and I think readers will be impatient, and just want to get to the point.
 * Some of the section titles are way too long! Four or five words should be the max.  For one example, change "History of Homeotic Selector Genes" to "History".
 * Your table of contents, hence your article as a whole, needs more structure. There should be both major and minor sections.  You acheive this by using both top-level headers (e.g. ==Major section== ) and sub-headers (e.g. ===Sub section=== ).
 * Don't use "Figure x" as a section header. Your section headers should be meaningful, and the figures should just be included in the flow of the article.
 * Sorry, where are the figures? I see references to figures, but no figures.  If you want to add some, please see some suggestions here, under "Figures and Images".
 * Under "History of Homeotic Selector Genes", you have two paragraphs, and then a list of terms and definitions. What do those terms have to do with the history?
 * In general, it seems that you have a lot of good content, but the article is very disorganized. I would suggest that you guys do some work this week to try organize this article into a coherent structure.

Thanks, I definitely agree with every single point and will get working on the organization. I tried adding a figure Seguncha sent to me however it was removed. Maskelrod and Seguncha, what would you guys like to do about the figures? Skhan58 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Final Week mini-review
Hey everyone. Just wanted to add one last review before the end of the course. I think if you work the remainder of the week on implementing the suggestions already given, you should be good to go! Your article is looking really great!! I will just re-enforce a few points below for some final things to look at: I think if you accomplish these things, along with any other suggestions that we have given throughout the semester, you will have an outstanding article! Best of luck! ~Rex Rexsmiley (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify the sections that are labeled "Figure" to see if they need new headings.
 * Read through each section slowly and ensure grammar is correct. Some advice that Klortho gave our group is to make sure the article reads clearly and simply enough that a freshman undergrad could grasp the concepts.
 * Insert wiki-links throughout the document where they are relevant. The first paragraph of your article is an excellent example!