Wikipedia talk:Education program archive/Saint Louis University/BIOL 460: Developmental Biology (Spring 2014)/Timeline

Assignment 1: Get Started
When is it due? Tues, 21 January 2014, 9:59PM - Allow about 2 hours, plus extra time if you get confused or distracted

What do I do? In this first unit, you will be introduced to Wikipedia, set up an account, your user page, and a pretend article in your "sandbox". If you get stuck editing Wikipedia, you can always ask a question at the Teahouse or at the talk page of Biosthmors, our online ambassador.
 * Go through the online student orientation. Parts of this assignment will be completed while you are going through the training module. It is important that you also learn the basic rules of Wikipedia. Allow about an hour for this.
 * Please read WP:STUDENTS. Allow about 10 minutes for this.
 * Create an account on Wikipedia. 5 minutes or less.
 * Create your user page (so that your user name is no longer red like this). Make sure there is a link (see WP:CHEAT for basic linking advice) to the course page at the top. Your user page can be as simple as copy and pasting this: "I'm editing Wikipedia as part of this assignment and here's a link to my sandbox ." This can take less than a minute (don't copy and paste the quotes, just fill in "Your user name" with your user name and feel free to personalize).
 * Create your sandbox with a pretend article. Practice using brief edit summaries for each edit. Make a first sentence with bold letters, like Wikipedia articles. Add a reference section. Cite a source. Add a picture. Add a section heading. Use a PMID and this tool (many are listed at Help:Citation tools) to create a formatted cite journal template. Put that in ref tags. See WP:CHEAT for help and here for more details on citing this way. This should take anywhere from 5 (for an experienced editor) to maybe 20 minutes (for a first-timer).
 * Enroll in the course on Wikipedia as follows:
 * Go to the course page.
 * Click on the "Enroll" tab at the top of the page.
 * Enter the Enrollment Token provided in your Syllabus and follow any other instructions.
 * Make sure that your User Name appears in the list of students at the bottom of the course page.
 * If it does not, check the top of the page to make sure that there is no statement indicating that you are looking at a cached copy of the page. If you are, click the link to update.

What will be graded? You should be enrolled as a Student on the course page, your user page should link to the course page, and your sandbox should contain at least one sentence with a bolded title, one formatted reference in cite journal format, and one possibly relevant picture. (5% of total project grade).

Assignment 2: Explore Wikipedia: read and think about a featured article, narrow your topic choices
When is it due? Tues, 4 February 2014, 9:59 PM

What do I do?
 * Using your sandbox page, make some practice edits. Here are a couple of references for getting started with editing pages on Wikipedia.
 * Training material, a practical introduction to editing Wikipedia for scientists. This is a very nice set of pages that were used in an "Introduction to Wikipedia" workshop held at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute on 30 July 2010.
 * WP:CHEAT mentioned in Assignment 1 is a very helpful quick-reference for the Wikipedia markup format.
 * Wiki markup is a more complete reference.
 * Explore WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. Check out their talk page and other links.
 * Review the Grading Scheme for rating the quality and importance of an article.
 * Critically evaluate the Genetics article. It was elevated by the Wikipedia community to a featured article Mar 2008 and is on the watchlist of 377 wikipedians who work to maintain that status. Review the talk page. Think about how talk pages are used for discussion on how to improve the article.
 * Critically evaluate three existing Wikipedia articles (at least two of which are directly related to the class and one of which can be anything of interest to you). For each of the three articles, you should either (1) add 1–2 sentences of new information, backed up with a citation to an appropriate source, or (2) leave suggestions for improving it on the article's talk page.
 * If you want to add a citation, read ahead to Assignment 3 for links on how to do this most efficiently.
 * With your partner(s), create a group project sandbox page. Include a link to this page on your user page.
 * Go to the search box and enter: User:xxxx/Bio460Sandbox (where xxxx= your user name).
 * After you search, you will have several options. Click on “Start the User:xxxx/Bio460Sandbox page.”
 * Then type in the box to start your new sandbox and add the link to your user page.
 * Individually, research and identify at least 2 articles you are considering working on for your main project. Make an initial assessment of these articles. Editorial note: I'm working on a possible list to choose from, but it will be incomplete. You may propose any article related to developmental biology (but preferably also related to your presentation topic) that you feel needs improvement. Proposals for new articles are fine for the list. An incomplete list of developmental biology stubs can be found here, but do not limit yourself to this list.
 * Your assessment should include (but not be limited to):
 * Do a quick evaluation of the article according to the criteria in the Good_article_criteria.
 * Look at the articles' talk pages to see if there has already been discussion among other Wikipedia editors about ways in which the article could be improved.
 * Begin to compile a bibliography of relevant research, at least one reference for each article. These should be reviews or other secondary sources such as textbooks.
 * Consider what pictures might improve the article. Know that pictures in open access journals (eg. PLoS and BMC journals) can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and incorporated into Wikipedia articles. See the essay Pictures for medical articles for more information.
 * Post your assessments on your group's project page.
 * Start a new section on your group page, titled "Initial article assessments from username"
 * Use subsections for each article.
 * If possible, link to online versions (or abstracts) of the references you found.
 * Justify starting any new Wikipedia articles, if appropriate.
 * Comment, as appropriate, on posts from your group members.
 * Be sure to sign your postings.



What will be graded? Your contributions and user page will be reviewed to verify that you have edited three articles or talk pages, at least two of which relate to developmental biology. Use the history page of each of the three articles you edit to show the changes or "diffs" on your user page, like this. Your ideas for your topic will also be reviewed on your group's project page. (5% of total project grade).

Assignment 3: Choose your article and begin writing in your sandbox
When is it due? Tues, 18 February 2014, 9:59 PM, but note separate deadline for intermediate step 6 Feb.

What do I do?
 * On your group's project page, discuss the articles with your teammate(s). When discussing, remember to use the Wikipedia conventions for talk pages: indentation and signing your posts. Part of your grade will be based on this.
 * As a group, choose one article.
 * Add your article to the class course page. Due 6 February 2014.
 * Wait until you have approval from your course instructor.
 * Place the following template or line on the talk page of the article you plan to edit:.
 * Put both the article and its talk page in your watchlist so you can respond in a timely manner to comments from other Wikipedians.
 * As a team, begin to research the topic of the article, identify key points that should be in the Wikipedia article for this topic. Discuss this on your group project page.
 * Pick one of your team members' sandboxes in which to work ... it does not matter which.
 * Begin to compile a list of high-quality references and post them to the working sandbox. Include links to online copies or abstracts when available. You and the community may find it helpful to do this for several articles on your short list. It will provide helpful suggestions for other Wikipedians for the articles that you don't select and while helping you to choose among them. You will most likely start with review articles or other secondary sources such as textbooks. You may find it helpful to skim the essay about identifying reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Begin reading the sources.
 * As you add references, it would be a good idea to skim them over and, for your teammate's benefit, add a few bullet points explaining what useful material the reference contains.
 * Read this handout on Understanding and avoiding plagiarism. Note, in particular, that Wikipedia has its own very stringent criteria concerning plagiarism and that plagiarism includes such subtle forms as using short phrases without attribution, or beginning from a copied text and simply rewording it while leaving the structure and meaning intact (i.e., close paraphrasing).
 * We will be using the Vancouver System (author-number) for citations. You are encouraged to use one of the WP citation tools such as [[this one]. With this tool, if you have a PubMed ID, you can quickly produce a full citation that you can cut-and-paste into an article.  This will not only save you work, but will help to ensure that references are cited in a consistent manner. More information on citating sources can be found here:
 * Review the citation information in the training material, a practical introduction to editing Wikipedia for scientists.
 * Watch the video How to use RefTools, which covers the basics of adding citations and references to articles.
 * Skim this handout on Referencing in Wikipedia.
 * Look over the following information and decide how you want to organize your article (or reorganize if appropriate).
 * Review the proposed style guidelines for gene and protein articles, if appropriate.
 * Consider whether it might be better to use a Summary article style with many links to more specific articles, in which case your contributions may be distributed among multiple articles, not just one.
 * As a team, prepare a preliminary outline for the article, and write that in a new section of the working sandbox page.
 * Add your ideas for how you would like to improve the article to the talk page of the article. This will open communication between your group and other wiki editors who are interested in improving the article.
 * Begin writing in the working sandbox. Each team member should write one or two paragraphs (approximately 200 - 500 words) with in-line citations. The primary purpose of this exercise is to learn to edit the wikipedia way rather than to write perfect prose. There will be ample opportunity to edit and improve.

What will be graded? Your article selection should be indicated on the course page and your user page. The course template should appear on the talk page of the article. Your working sandbox should include a beginning bibliography and your edited paragraph(s). (10% of total project grade).

Assignment 4: First Contribution
When is it due? Tues, 18 March 2014, 9:59PM

What do I do?
 * Move the content from the working sandbox into your article. Remember to check your watchlist to look for feedback or changes made by other Wikipedians.
 * NOTE: You may opt out of incorporating your work into Wikipedia, keeping the assignment entirely within the working sandbox. If you are interested in this option, please talk with the instructor.
 * Make a substantial contribution to your article. This contribution will vary depending on the amount and quality of the content at the beginning of your project. General guidelines:
 * If you focus your assignment on adding prose, try to add approximately 8 to 10 paragraphs of new sourced content. As an approximate minimum, each paragraph should be based on one new source. As a theoretical (and very tedious and unrecommended maximum) each sentence could be based upon two separate sources (but this raises questions on text-source integrity if you don't place inline citations carefully). Please be sure that the content is appropriate for an encyclopedia, that is concise, with no fluff.
 * If necessary, do not hesitate to remove existing content that is of poor quality, unsourced, or that does not fit into your plans for the article. Remember to be bold. Removing poorly written or poorly sourced content often does result in a net improvement to an article. If in doubt, you could first suggest the deletion on the talk page first, wait a couple of days for feedback, and then delete it if no one objects.
 * Review the previous content of your article for any indications of plagiarism. Rewrite or remove any inappropriate text. If you remove it, explain why on the Talk page.
 * Instead of words, you may add or update one or more infoboxes, figures, graphs, and/or tables. Creation of an original figure will count for more than adding an existing figure. You may find the handouts on “Uploading images” to be helpful.
 * Since there will be so much variation, you are advised to discuss your plans and expectations with your instructor as soon as your article has been selected.
 * Be sure to include headings. Wikipedia prefers relatively short chunks of text, 200 to 600 words. Headings are key to helping readers navigate through the page. If your headings are formatted correctly, they should automatically appear in the Table of Contents at the beginning of the entry.
 * Here are some of the most common mistakes and ones that you should avoid:
 * Per WP:REFPUNC, punctuation is placed before citations and should not be separated from the previous word or punctuation by a space. Some of the tools automatically insert a space and you must delete it.
 * Per WP:HEAD, headings are sentence case (first letter of the first word capitalized, but subsequent words lower case).
 * You may edit live or start in your sandbox. There are pros and cons to each approach:
 * The sandbox allows you to edit without the pressure of experienced Wikipedians reading your drafts or altering your writing while you try to learn Wikipedia rules and structure. Spending more than a week or two in sandboxes is strongly discouraged.
 * Editing live is exciting because you can see your changes to the articles immediately and experience the collaborative editing process throughout the assignment. Edits to your work will help you to learn the Wikipedia rules.

What will be graded? Your wikipedia entry. Use the history page to show the "diffs" on your user page as you did for Assignment 2. (20% of total project grade).

Assignment 5: First peer-review
When is it due? Tues, 25 March 2014, 9:59PM

What do I do?
 * Reviewers will be assigned at random and posted on the course page. Each individual will be assigned as a peer-reviewer of two other articles, and those articles should also be in your watchlist. For this unit, you will review the first of those two articles.
 * Before you start, you should review “Evaluating Wikipedia article quality.”
 * This is your chance to critically evaluate your classmates' topic and writing. Use your knowledge of Wikipedia and your knowledge of Developmental Biology to generate comments about how the article might be improved. Start a new section on the article's talk page with the title "Comments from ..." and add your user name. Please feel free to make minor or uncontroversial edits to the article you are reviewing yourself, but if the suggestions are more substantive or ones that could generate disagreement, please make a comment on the talk page about how the article might be improved. Some specific things to say or do to assist in this assignment include:
 * verifying that random portions of the article accurately represent their cited sources,
 * proposing new ways of phrasing the material to make it more clear and to reduce unnecessary words,
 * identifing any text that may be close paraphrasing,
 * suggesting ways to make the lead section follow Style Guidelines more closely,
 * identifying potential gaps in knowledge that should be contained in a well-written encyclopedic entry on the subject,
 * identifying places where there is ambiguity or inaccuracy over which sources are supporting what content,
 * suggesting alterations in the order of prose, sentences, paragraphs or sections for organizational purposes,
 * leaving questions on parts of the article that could arise in the mind of a reader that should be clarified,
 * ensuring that the content is within Wikipedia's guidelines (such as neutral point of view) and avoids plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
 * make sure the article incorporates into Wikipedia well by striking the right balance between underlinking, overlinking, and by not being an "orphan".
 * Your peer review should facilitate progress. Each point or suggestion should be a separate item on a bulleted list so that the editors can easily respond to each comment individually. It is surprisingly easy for comments and responses to become a confusing mush of text. In order to avoid this, your comments (and responses to the ones you receive) should follow the clear format shown in the example here.
 * Throughout the remainder of the course, continue to interact on the talk page, as appropriate, in relation to your feedback.

What will be graded? Your talk page section and your edits to the article will be evaluated to judge the quality, thoroughness, and thoughtfulness of your feedback. Your review should be separated into clear bulleted list as shown in the example above. Comments that demonstrate you were reading the sources (and potential sources) for the article and comparing them against the content of the article to generate feedback are valued. (10% of total project grade).

Assignment 6: Second contribution
When is it due? Tues, 15 April 2014, 9:59PM

What do I do? In this assignment you will further use your expertise in developmental biology to improve Wikipedia. Focus on extending the entry that you have chosen in Assignment 4. Remember to follow the general format of Wikipedia with lots of headings. Push the article closer to Good Article quality.
 * Address peer review comments, revise issues you now see in your first 8 to 10 paragraphs, and add another 8 to 10 paragraphs. Remember that it is better for you to add fewer words with quality content than an arbitrary paragraph count. Instead of words, you may add or update one or more infoboxes, figures/graphs/tables, and pictures from open access sources.
 * What if the topic I chose for the first 8 to 10 paragraphs does not have enough information for another 8 to 10 paragraphs? If you run into trouble, discuss options with your instructor. Maybe you could add content to another related article or upload pictures, add tables or figures as is described in assignment 4.
 * What do I do with the peer review comments my colleague put on my entry's talk page? You should respond to every comment by either taking the suggestions or explaining why you think the text was better as written. Note the clear format for your responses as shown in the example above.


 * What if other Wikipedians have taken down or totally changed my first 8 to 10 paragraph entry? Look at why they did this. If it is because there were serious problems with it, fix them. If it is because the others felt the material did not fit, and you disagree, discuss with them and make your arguments. Get help from our class Ambassador and others in the class to participate. Do your best to modify your material so that it can be maintained. Try to understand what is going on. Ask us. But ultimately, this assignment is about contributing additional content on different information from the first contribution. Try to learn from your experience so the new words stick.

What will be graded? Your responses to each peer review comment on the article's talk page will be evaluated. The progress on your Wikipedia entry will also be evaluated. Use the history page to show the "diffs" on your user page as you did for Assignment 2. (25% of total project grade).

Assignment 7: Second peer review
When is it due? Thur, 24 April 2014, 9:59PM


 * Reviewers will be assigned at random and posted on the course page. Each individual will be assigned as a peer-reviewer of two other articles, and those articles should also be in your watchlist. For this unit, you will review the second of those two articles.
 * Before you start, you should review “Evaluating Wikipedia article quality.”
 * This is your chance to critically evaluate your classmates' topic and writing. Use your knowledge of Wikipedia and your knowledge of Developmental Biology to generate comments about how the article might be improved. Start a new section on the article's talk page with the title "Comments from ..." and add your user name. Please feel free to make minor or uncontroversial edits to the article you are reviewing yourself, but if the suggestions are more substantive or ones that could generate disagreement, please make a comment on the talk page about how the article might be improved. Some specific things to say or do to assist in this assignment include:
 * verifying that random portions of the article accurately represent their cited sources,
 * proposing new ways of phrasing the material to make it more clear and to reduce unnecessary words,
 * identifing any text that may be close paraphrasing,
 * suggesting ways to make the lead section follow Style Guidelines more closely,
 * identifying potential gaps in knowledge that should be contained in a well-written encyclopedic entry on the subject,
 * identifying places where there is ambiguity or inaccuracy over which sources are supporting what content,
 * suggesting alterations in the order of prose, sentences, paragraphs or sections for organizational purposes,
 * leaving questions on parts of the article that could arise in the mind of a reader that should be clarified,
 * ensuring that the content is within Wikipedia's guidelines (such as neutral point of view) and avoids plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
 * make sure the article incorporates into Wikipedia well by striking the right balance between underlinking, overlinking, and by not being an "orphan".
 * Your peer review should facilitate progress. Each point or suggestion should be a separate item on a bulleted list so that the editors can easily respond to each comment individually. It is surprisingly easy for comments and responses to become a confusing mush of text. In order to avoid this, your comments (and responses to the ones you receive) should follow the clear format shown in the example here.
 * Throughout the remainder of the course, continue to interact on the talk page, as appropriate, in relation to your feedback.

What will be graded? Your talk page section and your edits to the article will be evaluated to judge the quality, thoroughness, and thoughtfulness of your feedback. Your review should be separated into clear bulleted list as shown in the example above. Comments that demonstrate you were reading the sources (and potential sources) for the article and comparing them against the content of the article to generate feedback are valued. (10% of total project grade).

Assignment 8: Final contribution
In this assignment you will put the final touches on your entry, responding to all comments, pushing it towards Good Article status. You will also visit your colleagues' articles and talk pages, helping the entire class achieve their best possible work.

When is it due? Thur, 8 May 2014, 9:59 PM. Extensions will be granted upon request.

What do I do?
 * In this assignment you continue to modify your entry, responding further to reader comments. You may want to add links, references, headers, images, polish the entry, and work hard to move your article toward GA status. You should also help your colleagues by commenting further on their articles, helping them attain GA status. Look back through all the comments, do some more reading, bring the piece up to your highest possible level.
 * Respond to the peer review comments and edits from your colleagues. Use them to improve your article. Do not ignore them. As you fix your piece, you should also put comments in the Talk section explaining your response as you did in Assignment 6.
 * Why are links so important? Where should I add them? You should add links both in your piece and in other pieces so they link to your piece. The internet in general and Wikipedia in particular are all about links. Links in other articles will attract potential reviewers and interested readers to your page.
 * What if other Wikipedians have taken down or totally changed my previous entries? Look at why they did this. If it is because there were serious problems with it, fix them. If it is because the others felt the material did not fit, and you disagree, present your arguments to them. Get help from our class Ambassador and others in the class to participate. Do your best to modify your material so that it can be maintained. Try to understand what is going on. Ask us. But ultimately, this assignment is about improving content for the entire article. Try to learn from your experience so the new words stick.
 * Can I make changes after the due date? The entire Wikipedian community will be grateful if you continue to make contributions to improve Wikipedia after the assignment is complete.
 * When you are finished with your assignment, replace the template you put on the talk page of your article in Assignment 3 with this template: . It should appear directly below the templates on the talk page and look like this:

What will be graded? Your final wikipedia entry (10% of total project grade) and your contributions to your classmates (5% of total project grade).

([ Click to return to your main course page and continue.])