Talk:Spermatocyte

ploidy
I put this on the spermatogenesis page too, and im pretty sure the chromosmal orientation in primary spermatocytes and secondary spermatocytes is incorrect as discussed in this topic. This is how I understand it, and I have some literature that also infers what I am saying.

Spermatogonia (2N)

(Mitosis)

Primary Spermatocytes (4N)

(Meiosis 1)

Secondary Spermatocytes (2N)

(Meiosis 2)

Spermatid & beyond (N)

This may look crazy at first but it makes way more sense. How can you go through meiosis 2 without halving the chromosome count?? This always perplexed me until i looked into it furhter and found literature on the subject. Here it is:

1)Kimura, Y. (1995). Development of Normal Mice from Oocytes Injected with Secondary Spermatocyte Nuclei (in: BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 53, 855-862)

2)Ogura, A. (1998). Development of Normal Mice from Metaphase I Oocytes Fertilized with Primary Spermatocytes (in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 95, No. 10 pp. 5611-5615)(first paragraph of abstract)

3)Mays-Hoopes, L.L. (1995). Preparation of Spermatogonia, Spermatocytes, and Round Spermatids for Analysis of Gene Expression Using Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting. (in: BIOLOGY OF REPRODUCTION 53, 1003-1011)

4)This website lays it out pretty clear http://www.expertreviews.org/01002320h.htm

Hope someone can address this...maybe i will if i dont get murdered Jimboapu (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Outlining and improving article
Hi everyone. User:Tatabox8 and myself are editing this article for a project. We have come up with an outline of our ideas on how to address and improve the article. By the end of the project, we are hoping to improve the article's quality status to B-class or above.

Spermatocyte Outline


 * 1) Definition
 * 2) Synthesis/Formation
 * 3) Primary spermatocyte
 * 4) Secondary spermatocyte
 * 5) Function/Difference in species?
 * 6) Mutation/Failure?

Please let us know if you have any recommendations to add this list, or other improvements. Thanks! -Amanaresi (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from magladem96
Hi! Looks like you're off to a good start with the spermatocyte article. I think you're outline that you propose on this talk page looks comprehensive and I look forward to seeing the article progress. Since this is the beginning of the article, there are still gaps which I'm sure you're planning on completing, per your proposed outline. :)

Most of the article contains in-line citations. Since this article is still at the beginning stages, there are only 7 references. As the article progress, I'm sure you'll add additional references. Will you also make sure that each reference has a link (if possible) so that I can click on it to take me to that reference?

I think the writing is good - it's unbiased. It's technical but I think most everyone will understand. Will you a little more information to the formation section? I don't know what the basal compartment or adluminal compartment is. Maybe adding a wikilink (if they exist) to those wikipedia pages would help?

The figures are good. Are there any figures to add to the mutations section? Maybe a picture of the Stra8 gene or the Mtap2 protein, if available?

Hope this helps! Magladem96 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback!


 * The sub sections primary and secondary spermatocytes will probably not be added due to that fact there is not much information we can add for the sections. They are just intermediate phases of formation of sperm. The most information we could find is the ploidy of each phase, which is something that will be address. The function section won't be added as well since it's just a phase and doesn't actually function as something more. We don't want to add sections and write only one sentence about them so, it's better off not to add them because the information can be included in the exsiting section. So, the sections listed on the article page now will probably be it. We will continue to add more writing and images to our article. I did try to wikilink the basal and adluminal compartment, but they do not exist so I will add that information into the formation section.


 * I will definitely go back and add web links to the references I can.


 * As for figures, we will try to find images available for commercial use to add them to our article. (They are actually harder to find than I thought, at least for our topic.)


 * Thanks again for your time and feedback.Tatabox8 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Magladem96, just wanted to let you know there are direct web links added for all possible sources except for the textbooks.Tatabox8 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the links to the references! I like PaleoBioJackie's comments about adding a little more background about the primary and secondary spermatocytes.  I think that this will be a very useful page for students in the future and the more information you can add, the better.  :)


 * I did a quick search on PubMed for spermatocyte articles and there's something unique about Drosophila spermatocyte cilia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828760/). I didn't realize spermatocyte had cilia.  Do all of spermatocytes have cilia?   Magladem96 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe most if not all spermatocytes have some kind of cilia. Most form flagella in the final stage when they become sperm. (Flagella is a modified cilium) We can look into the PubMed article when we start adding more material to our wiki article. Thanks for looking it up!Tatabox8 (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Jen, I am attempting to find an image(s) to add to the mutation and/or failure section of the article. I'm not sure a picture of Stra8 or Mtap2 alone would add much, as all I can find is structural figures of the gene/protein.  I'm looking into images of histological sections of testes comparing wild type and Stra8 deficient spermatocytes, as that may be more relevant-but not sure if I will be able to use what I find due to copyrighting.  Thanks again for the suggestions!-Amanaresi (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I really like the changes you've made to the article. The new pictures are much better than the old one!  Plus the new content adds to the article as well.  In the Damage and Repair section - is the whole paragraph from the same source?  I think that because you are referencing processes and studies, maybe you should reference each sentence, even if it is from the same source.  Or perhaps add in the text something like "Research by Matulis and Handel have shown..."  In our DNA base flipping page, I used the same reference on several sentences in the Discovery section.  Let me know if I'm wrong so I can change my page.  :)  Magladem96 (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking out our updates! Amy did cite the source for each sentence in the Damage and repair and mutation section, but since Keilana mentioned we shouldn't cite the same source twice in a row. I removed them. I will double check Keilana on that and get back to you.Tatabox8 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keilana got back to me and here is what I asked and her response. Looks like we do not have to cite the source repeatedly even if we are referencing a process and studies, but perhaps mentioning the author of the study is the way to go like you suggested above. "Hi Keilana, on our inital feedback for our first contribution to our article you mentioned that we don't need to cite the same source twice in a row. Does it apply to all material in the article? Or if we are referencing processes and studies we should reference each sentence even if it's the same source? I have been removing same source reference back to back, but another reviewer thought we should cite the source. I can see it either way, but I just want to keep it consistent throughout our article and make sure I'm doing it properly to the standards of wiki.Thanks for your time!Tatabox8 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC) @Tatabox8: Yes, it does apply to all material in the article unless there's a quotation, which is less common in science articles. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatabox8 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks! Sounds like I'll have to go update my article so that I don't cite the same source twice in a row.  Thanks for the finding out and letting me know! Magladem96 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, she said we can put the in-line citation at the end of the last sentence where we use that source.Tatabox8 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're article is looking really good! You've really added a lot of content!  One suggestion I have is to add the full name of the Stra8 gene (Stimulated By Retinoic Acid 8) and wiki-link Microtubule-associated protein 2.  Also, what does preleptotene mean (in the sentence: "Stra8 expression is more present in preleptotene spermatocytes...")  Jen  Magladem96 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We will add the full name of Stra8 and wikilink microtuble associated protein 2. Since you're the second person questioning about preleptotene we will add details for clarification. Thanks again, for the suggestions we will make the improvements within the next week.Tatabox8 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jen, just quick update for you that I have added the wiki links you pointed out. I added a section after preleptotene spermatocyte and was able to wiki link leptotene.Tatabox8 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Your article looks really good!  Great job! Magladem96 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from PaleoBioJackie
Great introduction. I feel this will likely answer many people’s initial questions when they research this topic. I think the introduction would benefit from a few more sentences, though.

Overall, the article is a little short. I know you will continue working and lengthening it. Great work so far. I like that it is very accessible to someone unfamiliar with the subject. I also like that the information provided is clear and concise. There doesn’t need to be any fluff in an article like this.

I would love to see more information about spermatocyte formation. How is spermatocyte formation regulated by the endocrine system? How might endocrine system imbalances affect spermatocyte formation and function? What kinds of organisms have spermatocytes? Is there an alternative found in nature that accomplishes the same role as spermatocytes in organisms that don’t have them? Do worker bees and non-mating ants have spermatocytes?

Your Spermatocyte Outline ideas of the effects of spermatocyte failure, function/difference in species are great ideas. I would love to see more information on primary and secondary spermatocytes as well, even if there is not enough information for their own sections. What differentiates them and in what stages of Meiosis are they found? An infographic would accomplish this nicely.

The “See also” section is very relevant, and I though the infobox at the bottom is a nice addition to the article. You seem to be on top of your Wikilinks. The references provided are relevant to the article. I didn’t sense any of them followed the source articles too closely. I would encourage more sources. Great start! -PaleoBioJackie (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback! I agree that our article is a little short, but it's still in the works we are hoping to add more in the following weeks. We will use the great questions you posted as a guide to add more information. I would love to add more images/infographic of the the different stages, but it's actually hard to find images of spermatocytes that can be posted on wiki. We will try our best to find images, but if we can't I will probably add them as external links where people can access them.Tatabox8 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions! I agree also we definitely need some more content--we are trying to add as much as much as possible, as there was only about a paragraph and an image originally in this article. We also have some ideas about more images to add, hopefully they will be in there for the next contribution.-Amanaresi (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! This article has improved so much! Great work you guys! I especially love the new photo additions and the table formatting. PaleoBioJackie (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We will work to further improve the article this week.Tatabox8 (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It has been really great to watch this article progress so much. I like that you added a "History" section, although the references here seem a little sparse. Great work so far! PaleoBioJackie (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jackie-thanks! We tried to include some content in a History section, but had some difficulty finding information specific to spermatocytes, and therefore the information is relatively general to the spermatogenesis process.  Unfortunately, we were only able to include a few references for this section at this time, but hope that the information is still informative.-Amanaresi (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Keilana
Hi guys, great job so far. I have some suggestions for you that will hopefully help as you move forward. Let me know via email or on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks!


 * You don't need to cite the same source twice in a row.
 * Your template and references section is malformatted somehow, you should have a separate section after "external links" for references and the references should come before the template. Ask if you need any help!
 * Is there a link for Mark et al.? A DOI or PMID isn't showing up.
 * Your reference #4 ("The Reproductive System") needs to be fully formatted.
 * The formation section is written at a little too high of a level, so you should try to gloss more and imagine a smart 15-year-old reading this.

Good start - you'll hear more on this later. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback!


 * I will remove the same source reference. I just wanted to source where I got the info.


 * As for the template when you say there should be a separate section after "external links" for references are you saying there is a reference section for external links? I thought external links were just for links related to the material. You also mentioned that the reference should come before the template. Are you talking about the info box with related links? If you could help us that would be great.


 * For the Mark et al source, I did include a website where I saw the article is posted for free but I didn't actually use this source my partner did. I think she provided all the info she had on the source for the reference. I'm not sure what a DOI is, but going to the link where the article is I don't see a PMID. Here is the link if you want to check it out http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/19/3233.full.


 * For reference #4, I provided all the info I could. If you click on the link there isn't more details about the website. I will try to contact the school that posted the site for more details to make the reference more complete.


 * As for the writing in the formation section I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Using the scientific terms I needed to be specific to the topic. I'm not sure how to gloss it for a smart 15 year old, would defining the scientific terms help or what do you suggest?Tatabox8 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Amontei2
Hello all! It looks like you have been moving to the right direction! I particularly remember this article, as I used this article as my initial assessment project. I remember it being a very small article there had only one line written which contained the definition. The article did not cite any references, but it contained some random wikis. So I can definitely see the improvement! Great job! When reading the comments above, I can see some of the improvements you have made compared to your first contribution. While reading the improved article here are the comments/suggestions I have: I hope this helps, and if I wasn't clear enough or if there is anything you have questions about, just let me know. Amontei2 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see some of your paragraphs do not have any citation, maybe those can be added for reference? For example: " Primary spermatocytes are diploid (2N) cells containing 46 chromosomes and after Meiosis I division two secondary spermatocytes are formed. The secondary spermatocytes are haploid (N) and contain 23 chromosomes each." I believe this should be cited.
 * the language you use is easy to understand and that is great!
 * how about creating a section talking about primary and secondary spermatocytes to add some more content to the article? I saw you have that on your outline, so are you still adding that portion? I thought it was a good idea but since I didn't see it on the article now, I figure I would ask.
 * how about adding spermatocyte composition? I did a quick pubmed search and found this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/698237, what do you think?
 * overall, I think you have improved the article substantially and it looks great! The mages are very helpful and the organization (the way it flows) it is also great. However, I see you still have some room to expand and add more sources.
 * great job and I can't wait to see the finished work!


 * Thanks for taking your time to read our article!

I have added the reference to the sentence you mentioned that should have a citation. Initally, I wanted to put one there, but it was the same source as the first section sentences so, I did not reference it. We had feedback from one of the OA that we dont need to cite the same source twice in a row so, I edited our article not to reference sources back to back. I just message her to make sure if that applies to everything to double check. I'm glad you found our article is easy to understand. As for a section dedicated to primary and secondary spermatocytes there isn't just much informtion to talk about. much of the text I have read discuss the ploidy and just cell division mitosis and meiosis and I don't want to go into detail on that aspect because many may know the process already or can just click on the wikilink. I thought I would be able to find more material to add to the individual sections, but to find out there isn't much I could add. I will look into the composistion of a spermatocyte, but there will be variations upon different species perhaps I can make a wikitable if I can find information on multiple species. Thanks again for your time!Tatabox8 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see... That makes sense to not use the same citation back to back, but there has to be a way to cite them to make sure it is not considered plagiarism. But I understand what you mean, and I am also not sure how to work around that. Talking to the OA is definitely a great start :) The wikitable idea sound great, that will also be a simple way to add more content to the article along with more sources. In addition, I think the wikitable will be very useful for readers to find information regarding different species. Good luck editing it and I look forward to see the finalized article! Amontei2 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Keilana got back to me and if the source is the same we do not have to cite it back to back. I guess we can possibly mention it in the following sentences, but it can become redundent. I don't want to get in trouble for plagiarism, but I guess as long as the material is cited somewhere its ok.Tatabox8 (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That will do it then! I will also check my article to make sure I didn't cite something back to back as well :) Amontei2 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Klortho
You guys have done a really great job on this article. It has a lot of good information, is well structured, sourced, and has some nice figures. The comments below are just my suggestions for a couple of ways it might be improved. Keep in mind that they are just suggestions, and if you disagree, or these conflict with other reviewers' suggestions, then do what you think is best.


 * The lead is very good, but I think the language could be simplified a little bit. In complex topics such as this, with a lot of domain-specific terminology, I am always in favor of slightly more verbose introductions, with very short sentences, and plain-English descriptions glossing the technical terms.  So, for example (and keep in mind that this is just a suggestion, and not perfect), instead of "Spermatocytes are male gametes found in the seminiferous tubules located within the testis, derived from immature germ cells called spermatogonia.", how about, "Spermatocytes are a type of male gamete in animals.  They derive from immature germ cells called spermatogonia.  They are found in the testis, in a structure known as the seminiferous tubules."?


 * You need to copy edit a little bit for grammar and punctuation. For example, "Almost all male animals produce spermatocytes even hermaphrodites such ..." needs a comma before "even".  And, conversely, in "Once, the eggs are formed they ...", the comma should be deleted. One more example: "The formation of primary spermatocytes in humans begin ..." -- should be "begins".  If you copy-pasted the whole article into Word, and use its grammar checker, that would probably help.


 * I would mention the two main types of spermatocytes in the lead.


 * I would rename the header "Formation of Spermatocytes" to simply "Formation".


 * In the first sentence of "Formation", you should introduce the term "spermatocytogenesis", since that's used in your figure caption. Maybe just as a parenthetical:  "The formation of primary spermatocytes (a process known as spermatocytogenesis) in humans ..."


 * Your citations tend to be on the first sentence of a paragraph, and then the later sentences of the same paragraph do not have any clear reference. For example, see the first para. of "Formation".  Could references (3) and (4) also be sources for the later sentences?  If so, then move them to the end of the para (no need to duplicate them multiple times -- just move them).  If not, could you provide sources for the later material?  This is a pattern, it seems, for every paragraph in the article so far.


 * Really nice graphic and description in the "Formation" section! That said, however, there seems to be a missing link:  what is the connection between, in the first paragraph, "The release of FSH into the testes will develop nursing sertoli cells to prepare for sperm production.", and, in the second, "At puberty spermatogonia, located along the walls of the seminiferous tubules within the testis, will be initiated and start to divide ..."?  If you could elaborate on this process, I think it would be good.


 * As with the "Formation" header, I think you could rename the "Spermatocyte Ploidy" -> "Ploidy".  But, on the other hand, the scope of the table is broader than just "ploidy", so maybe some other heading would be better.


 * Regarding the table: I made a change to the Spermatogenesis table, which I guess you thought was a mistake, and reverted.  I put my change back it:  I took the explanatory text out of the table cell and put it into the text.  It is better, because it keeps the table from being rendered too wide.  Perhaps you could do the same for your instance of the table in this article.


 * But I'm still not sure it's appropriate to have this table here. You took out several rows, but I would still ask, why is spermatogonium included?  It is not, from my understanding, a spermatocyte.  I would rather like to see this section reworked a bit, and maybe called "structure and function", or something like that, and expanded to include a lot more prose description of what goes on within spermatocytes that makes them unique types of cells.


 * In "Specific mutations" section: "Stra8" is a gene -- in what organism? (I know it's human, but you should state this explicitly).


 * I think you could still add some more content. Here are some topics that, if time permits, you might consider addressing:
 * History -- what were the significant scientific discoveries leading up to our present understanding?
 * Are there differences in these types of cells, or in any of the processes, among different types of animals?
 * Related to this, what is the phylogeny of these types of cells and these processes -- how did they evolve?
 * What is the real physical difference between Ad and Ap cells? What causes them to behave differently?

Okay, that's all from me. Keep up the good work! Klortho (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing our article! You made some great suggestions and we will take those into considerations when improving our article in the following week. As for citations, I have asked Keilana if it is better to put all the citiations at the end of the sentence if its for the same source. We were advise earlier we don't have to cite the material back to back and therefore when the information came from the same source I just reference them in the inital sentence. Now I know I can reference them at the end. As for including spermatogonium in the wikitable I thought it would be useful to know the ploidy of that stage due to it being the state prior to formation of primary spermatocyte, but it can be removed easily. Thanks again for the feedback!Tatabox8 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "we don't have to cite the material back to back" -- this is definitely true, but I think the way you have it now, as I mentioned, it's not clear that the later sentences are sourced. If you have doubts, you could double check again with Keilana; she is more experienced than I. Klortho (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have checked with Keilana and will work on the article this week to make the improvements.Tatabox8 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Klortho, thanks for your kind words. We will make sure to simplify the language and edit any grammar/punctuation--although this may not be until our final edit.  We will also look into information to incorporate into a History section, and look to add a few more images to the article before the final version.-Amanaresi (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We incorporated some of your suggestions into our most recent contribution, including the addition of a 'Unique properties in different species' as well as a 'History' section. The history section was a bit general to the spermatogenesis as a whole (but I believe still relevant), but with further digging, we may be able to find more about specifically spermatocytes.  We also added a few images since the last edit.-Amanaresi (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gkaltam
Hi everyone!

I really like what you have done with the article. I remember it only being a couple of sentences long with one picture. A couple of pointers: Gkaltam (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Make the language less technical. I think the general audience may be scared away by how technical the lead sounds right now.
 * I like that you guys have two images already as part of your page. It helps the audience identify with what you are talking about. I would suggest adding another for the Damage and repair section.
 * Is the formation of a spermatocyte the same in all mammals? I think that might be another route you can take with this article.
 * History I think would be another good section, if time permits.


 * Thanks for taking your time to review our article and giving us feedback! We will definitely look into trying to make the article less technical as possible. I'm glad you find the images helpful. From what I have read the formation of spermatocytes are similar in all mammals. As for the history section, that may be a possibility depending on what information I can find. We will look into your suggestions for this coming week's contribution.Tatabox8 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments! Adding a history section is a definite possibility, we will look into it! We are planning to add some more images to our article, particularly in the damage and repair as well as mutation sections.-Amanaresi (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your page looks wonderful! I love all the images. It really helps connect the reader with what the article is saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkaltam (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cchandu1
Hi!

First thing that I would like to note is that the page looks like it is coming along great and looks as though it is almost complete! One thing that I did note is that the page looks slightly short, as if it were missing a section or two. Inserting a history section may help or if there are differences seen in the development of Spermatocytes in different organisms, etc...

Also, reading through the page, the information presented is really great. However, there were some parts that I had to reread because it didn't seem to read well. For example, "In hermaphroditic C. elegans, sperm production occurs first and is stored in the spermatheca." This sentence could use a "then" inserted before or after the "is."

Finally, the images used are very helpful and relevant to the text. I think that the "Damage, repair, and failure" section (or the "Specific mutations" section) could also benefit from adding an image to it.

Cchandu1 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback! We will look into adding more sections suggested by everyone this week depending on what kind of information we can obtain from legitimate sources. As mentioned by Amy, grammar and punctuation will be corrected in the coming weeks. We will try to include more images in each section, as well.Tatabox8 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looked over the article page and saw the grammar corrections. It all seems to be coming along great! Cchandu1 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking over the article again! Yes, we made improvements base on the feedback we got last week. We also added some new images and sections. I'm waiting to hear back from some of our article sources to see if we can use the images they provided in their article.Tatabox8 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Richarnj
Your article seems to be in great shape. I really like the structure of the article and your figures are very helpful in outlining the material. You have also done a great job with wiki linking the more technical and complex topics. Here are a few minor suggestions to consider for further improvement. Great work! I look forward to seeing your finished article. Richarnj (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I might suggest combining the last two sentences of the first paragraph in the lead section to read something like, "There are two types of spermatocytes, primary and secondary which form through the process of spermatocytogenesis." This reduces the reuse of words, and in my opinion makes it easier to understand.
 * Consider explaining what type A and type B cells are in the Formation section. You explain what happens to these cells but not what defines these types.
 * Consider in all sections referencing your figures. The figures you have included are extremely useful but readers may benefit from a brief reference in the text of the article to help them put the figures in context.
 * In Endocrine Intiation, first I believe it should be spelled "initiation," and the I should be lowercase. I believe the general convention is to only capitalize the first word of each header. Consider changing the word "it" starting the second sentence to avoid ambiguity as to what "it" refers.
 * The beginning of the Cell type summary section takes a different tone than the rest of your text. You could consider rewording this to "The following is a table summarizing the..."  It is also a bit awkward how the table is referred to twice; maybe you can just continue talking about it instead of adding "in the following table."
 * In the table do you only want to wiki link "meiosis" or "meiosis I" and "meiosis II" as you have earlier in the article?
 * The Specific mutations section is very technical. I see that most of your terms can't be wiki-linked, and the content is good but likely would be confusing for a less-familiar audience.


 * Thank you for feedback and suggestions! I didn't even catch the miss-spelled word. We will definltely use you suggestions for our final contribution this coming week. I agree the cell type summary section is awkward. I'm debating whether we even need it or not. It's there because it seems people were confused on the ploidy of the cells and I thought the table is straighforward and an easy summary to read, but I will defintely re-word it to make it flow better. I'll go back into the article and try to keep the reference to meiosis I and II consistant. Thanks again for checking out our article!Tatabox8 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the idea you had with the cell type section and I agree the ploidy can be confusing. Some readers could also be confused with the ideas of spermatogonium vs spermatocyte vs spermatid vs the lay understanding of sperm.  Maybe expanding the section could help make it easier to follow. Richarnj (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into adding information to the cell type section in the following week.Tatabox8 (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nicole, I haven't added the new info to the wiki table to our main article yet and I wanted to get your opinion if this is what you meant for expanding on the section. I basically separated the cell and type and added all the cells found throughout spermatogenesis. The main difference between these cells is the ploidy and maturity.
 * {| class="wikitable"

|- |spermatogonium (types Ad, Ap and B) ||germ cells|| diploid (2N) / 46 || 2C / 46 || spermatocytogenesis (Mitosis) || 16 days |- | primary spermatocyte ||male gametocyte|| diploid (2N) / 46 || 4C / 2x46 || spermatocytogenesis (Meiosis I ) || 24 days |- | secondary spermatocytes ||male gametocyte|| haploid (N) / 23 || 2C / 46 || spermatidogenesis (Meiosis II ) || A few hours |- | spermatids ||male gametid|| haploid (N) / 23  || 1C / 23 || spermiogenesis ||24 days |- |spermatozoids ||sperm|| haploid (N) / 23 || 1C / 23 || spermiation || 64 days (total)
 * Cell ||Type|| Ploidy/Chromosomes in human || DNA copy number/Chromatids in human || Process entered by cell || Duration
 * Cell ||Type|| Ploidy/Chromosomes in human || DNA copy number/Chromatids in human || Process entered by cell || Duration
 * }


 * Tatabox8 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I ended up moving adding the new info to the existing table after many of my friends said it was useful. Just FYITatabox8 (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad you have added it; I agree that it is very useful, and your article is looking great. Richarnj (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme
I had to look hard to find things that are wrong, so I suppose it is pretty good already. I won't repeat what was said above I hope!

I suspect that there is a lot more to the topic than is written here.

The more detailed part about C. elegans in the lede could go into a different section.

I could also be good to get information on humans such as how many of these cells are there? How big are they?

Things to link: ploidy Spo11 Dmc1=DMC1 (gene) kinase ATR can link to Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3 related Atm to Ataxia telangiectasia mutated MSH5 double strand break signaling pathway; where you link infertility you can be more specific and link Male infertility.

Avoid statements like "the past two decades" as this will be out of date in the future, see WP:Dated, write something like 1990s and 2000s instead.

" hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis" -—– use of axis is strange to me, I assume that you mean the hormone chain.

preleptotene and leptotene need explanation.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK topics that are missing: germ cell specific histones like HIt, TH2A, and TH2B start in these cells. Drosophila, changes in the cells as they mature - nucleus enlarges, crossing over, genes roughex twine (gene) Dmcdc2, Spermatocyte arrest, synaptonemal complex, SCP1 COR1 SC65 Xmr Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking your the time to read our article and providing feedback! Since our topic is an intermediate step in production of sperm there actually wasn't a ton of information pertaining to the topic. It generally was briefly mentioned in most of the textbooks I read, unless it was a journal paper specifically on the topic of spermatocyte. Our goal was to write a broad overall article on the subject matter to inform the readers of what is a spermatocyte. formation, hormone initiation, examples of mutations...etc. We hope the people reading our article can get a good idea/understanding of the subject and then do their own research of the species they are most interested in. Hopefully, our reference and links can guide them. We could write more about C.elegans in it's own section, but it was meant to be an example for all animals producing sperm. If the reader wants more they should look into the paper we reference for details or perhaps reading the C. elegans page. We will definitely go back and change the timeframe statments to reflect a specific era. We will use your suggestions in the following week where we make our final contribution to the article.Tatabox8 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from mmehta10
Overall this article is in great shape. It flows well and the content seems accurate since you have good references. I also liked that you have provided wikilinks for any term that could possibly need explaining. I think the pictures are very useful for an article such as this and you have just the right amount of them!

I would like to suggest a few things which may be able to make this article even better:


 * Adding 1-2 more references in the history section (just uses 1 journal article currently) as this would make it more credible.
 * Perhaps adding a short section on techniques used to evaluate spermatogenic activity or its constituents. I found this article on clinical evaluation of spermatogenic activity incase you like to include this in your article.


 * Perhaps adding the affects from diseases/treatments such as cancer chemotherapy on spermatocyte meiosis would be interesting as well.

Hope you find the comments useful. Good job so far! Mmehta10 (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback and suggestions! We will look into it when we make our final contribution this weekTatabox8 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Misha. I agree there can/should be more references in the history section.  Thanks for the article and additional reference, we will check these out!-Amanaresi (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article looks great! Good job!Mmehta10 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)