User talk:Mamahdi14/sandbox

terrible Nnkarma12 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you should work harder Nnkarma12 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Peanut butter sucks Nnkarma12 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a colloquial saying that "karma's a bitch," but that doesn't mean User:Nnkarma12 should post comments in this particular tone. Katbartlow (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peanut butter.
Peanut butter isn't that good.Mamahdi14 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Daniel9395: - You should include some links to other wikipedia articles about polyclonal and monclonal antibodies OR you could just elaborate a little more about them yourself. Daniel9395 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel9395: Also try to include some diagrams. I still haven't gotten a chance to talk to Kat about how we can do this so if you want to go sometime together we can do so. Daniel9395 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel9395: Also antibodies have different immunoglobulin domains which you could mention and insert a link to some article that describes more in detail about immunoglobulin domains. Daniel9395 (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel9395: Also the regions on the antigen that an antibody binds to is an epitope. See if you can elaborate a little on that OR link it to the epitope wikipedia article. Daniel9395 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Daniel9395: Use some more information from the book about antibodies. Overall it seems pretty straightforward and precise. See if you can just insert a few more links and diagrams and a little bit more background info. You could also include a link to Nasser's article which I think is about immunoglobulin class switching in B cells to generate antibodies with IgM, IgD, IgE etc. Daniel9395 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you included a picture of an antibody, showing the Y structure with the long and the short chains, and where it binds to the antigen. You also talk about the Fc and Fab domains without stating what/where they are or what they do, in the Secondary Antibody section. A diagram or just a little explanation of what those domains are would be helpful for this. I think you should talk more about antibodies' function within the body because most of what you say here focuses on their use in immunostaining. You should integrate your list of references into the body of your draft, so that it's clear what information is coming from which sources. Especially in the section on synthesis of antibodies, citation is needed. Kathleenab (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Kat's comments
Overall, I think your article could use some substantial work.


 * Sources. Your current sources are mostly derived from biotech company websites. The information is probably accurate, but these are not the most reliable sources and you should not rely exclusively on these sources. Better sources include your cell physiology textbook, any of the immunology textbooks that exist on campus, medical or other encyclopedias, articles and books written about molecular biology methods, or articles from government or professional society websites.
 * Citations. You need inline citations in this article.
 * Chosen information. You chose "Primary and secondary antibodies" as your topic, not "Antibodies". Link to the pre-existing Wikipedia article on antibodies instead of largely rewriting it in your first section.
 * Writing style and tone. Attempt to make your article read in a professional tone of voice; portions of the article are currently written in an informal style.
 * Level of scientific detail. In addition to expanding on the information already present in the article, you should include some detailed information about common techniques that use primary and secondary antibodies, common conjugates of secondary antibodies, etc.

-- Katbartlow (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your revised article is substantially improved over the first iteration, but could still use substantial work:
 * Formatting. I would include a box with a table of contents, and I would use Wiki markup to make a distinction into three main sections: "Antibodies," "Primary antibodies," and "Secondary Antibodies."
 * Images. I like the image that you have chosen and think it's a good start. I would retain the image on the current "Primary and Secondary Antibodies" page, because I think it is quite informative.
 * Details. I think that some of the information you have chosen to include is not needed. Instead, you should fold "monoclonal antibody," "polyclonal antibody," and "antibody production" into your background "Antibodies" section, and make sure to link to the pre-existing (and very detailed) wikipedia pages on these topics. Meanwhile, some of the information I would expect to see in this article is not present. I'd expect to see more detailed information on what molecules are commonly conjugated to secondary antibodies, what the function of these molecules is, and what typical applications these secondary antibodies are used for. I would also expect to see a more-complete explanation of what types of techniques currently use primary and secondary antibodies. Also be careful of inaccuracies in your article: for example, it's not true that primary antibodies are "mostly" available fluorescently-conjugated or biotinylated. Most of them are unconjugated.
 * Sources. I am reiterating my earlier caution about your heavy reliance on sourcing from biotech company websites, which may contain biased information.
 * Linking to other wikipedia articles. You should make a stronger effort at linking to other wikipedia articles.
 * Citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katbartlow (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)