User talk:Elwak001/sandbox

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/15/6/4556.short

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0006899371900540

check these out: one w/ an autoradiographic look on development of optic tectum in chicks and a paper showing how this development has lamina specific expression of adhesion molecules.

Zasan001 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003582 This elaborates on the evolutionary development of the tectum. Also includes information on the cell types in the tectum. "The tectum also presents many different cell types; the most commonly studied is the piriform cell, a pear-shaped neuron that have radially oriented neurons" Maybe we can add a section on cell types of the tectum.50.202.217.173 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)EH

Gabi Peer Review
- give more background on what optic tectum actually is. A good bit of the information stated seems to be a bit too specific for the goal of the article, but maybe this would be remedied with more background info.

-what is OMR and OKR? Specify

- sentence structure and flow is rusty, go through and closely edit. A lot of incomplete sentences that don't make sense.

-There's a good bit of spelling, grammatical, and citation errors that should be fixed.

- need to begin to incorporate the structure for the article. Seems really fractured right now and doesn't quite flow.

Glofland (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)glofland

Claudia's Peer Review
Hey Wrenn, Zaidel, and Esai

I think you have a good start to your draft and you have definitely included information that is not present in the current Wikipedia article. I think you really just need to focus on structuring your draft in a clear and logical manner.

I think it would be beneficial to elaborate on the function of the tectum. The current page says that the tectum is responsible for visual and auditory reflexes. It goes into some detail in the structure section. Are you able to expand upon this at all? For example, how are visual/auditories cue processed in the tectum and how does it respond to these cues, ultimately resulting in a reflexive reaction?

I think the development section could be relabelled as "Structure," as the only mention you have of development is that it develops from the "alar plate," and you focus more on the physical arrangement of the tectum into layers. I think this would be fine as long as you label this section as "Development & Structure" if there is not enough unique information to necessitate having two separate sections. If you want to talk more about development then maybe you could look into the cellular makeup of the tectum. Are there different events in tectum development? So for example when we talked about optic cup morphogenesis the optic vesicle evaginated from the neural keel, RPEs flattened, retinal progenitor cells began to elongate, and the lens began to develop from the lens plate, and the optic vesicle invaginated to form the optic cup. Something like that would belong in a development section. If there is not information on development then you might be able to briefly mention it in the lead...such as "The tectum is a region of the brain derived from the alar plate of the mesencephalon..." I JUST realizd that you have some of this information under zebrafish, so maybe think of moving it to the development section!

Also for the pontine nucleus thing, you may just be able to link to the Wikipedia article if there is one instead of describing what it is because it might be off topic and I assumed when I first briefly skimmed that section that pontine nuclei were somehow a part of the tectum

As for structure, I think you could include more information about the different layers.

I like your idea of including model organisms under each section, kind of as context/examples. I think a clear structure to your draft could be something like Lead→Development→Structure→Function

One of your reference links didn't work for me so I couldn't see if it was appropriate. I imagine that all of your references are relevant and supportive of your information even though you haven't linked them yet.

CJAmbrose (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)